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:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:44:18 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Cc:     palmer@dabbelt.com, conor@kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>,
        Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>,
        Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/9] RISC-V: shunt isa_ext_arr to cpufeature.c
Message-ID: <20230626-2b8f42ace039368c8e917393@orel>
References: <20230626-provable-angrily-81760e8c3cc6@wendy>
 <20230626-endowment-crave-d72f9423c5b3@wendy>
 <20230626-79b06f642aa2996098c9353d@orel>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230626-79b06f642aa2996098c9353d@orel>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:29:04PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:41PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
...
> > +const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicntr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICNTR),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicsr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICSR),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zifencei, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIFENCEI),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihpm, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHPM),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zba, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBA),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbs, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBS),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(smaia, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMAIA),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(ssaia, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSAIA),
> > +	__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(svnapot, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVNAPOT),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svpbmt, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT),
> > +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA("", RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX),
> 
> I think we can either drop this null entry or drop the count variable
> below. My preference would be to drop the count variable, and always
> loop to the null.

Eh, never mind, the entry isn't null, it's "". Why do we have that entry
though? I guess it can be dropped?

Thanks,
drew