Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:12:36 +0100
From:   Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Cc:     "Hongren (Zenithal) Zheng" <i@zenithal.me>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Jiatai He <jiatai2021@iscas.ac.cn>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] RISC-V: uapi: add HWCAP for Bitmanip/Scalar Crypto
Message-ID: <Y3+mBAV8oxphjHcJ@vermeer>
References: <YqYz+xDsXr/tNaNu@Sun>
 <YqY0i22SdbHjB/MX@Sun>
 <Y385rS/5zDaDJ3Os@vermeer>
 <Y39AXYPFzSiBngwI@wendy>
 <Y39Lwp4rQc3Qkl0i@vermeer>
 <Y39blUaC/jHiOYCk@wendy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y39blUaC/jHiOYCk@wendy>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:55:01AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:47:30AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> 
> > Patch #1 is definitely needed regardless of which interface we pick for
> > exposing the ISA strings to userspace.
> 
> I took another look at #1, and I feel more confused about what
> constitutes canonical order than I did before! If you know better than
> I, and you probably do since you're interested in these 6 month old
> patches, some insight would be appreciated!

Assuming we don't go with hwcap, I dont think the order of the
riscv_isa_ext_id enum matters that much?

iiuc we're building the cpuinfo string from the riscv_isa_ext_data
array, and I think the current code is incorrect:

static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = {
    __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),
    __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
    __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
    __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svpbmt, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT),
    __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
    __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
    __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA("", RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX),
};

zicbom and zihintpause should come before supervisor level extensions.
I'm going to send a patch for that.

And the Zb/Zk ones should come after the Zi ones, and before the
supervisor level ones (The I category comes before the B or the K one).
So we should check that when patch #1 is rebased.

Cheers,
Samuel.