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 18:05:40 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>, palmer@dabbelt.com,
        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 1/9] RISC-V: don't parse dt/acpi isa string to get
 rv32/rv64
Message-ID: <20230626-4fb963235f3ab08383a6d9ab@orel>
References: <20230626-provable-angrily-81760e8c3cc6@wendy>
 <20230626-silk-colonize-824390303994@wendy>
 <20230626-e3ea7beb39c584bfbf7ee836@orel>
 <20230626-dragonish-romp-9acf4846ae01@spud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230626-dragonish-romp-9acf4846ae01@spud>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
> > > @@ -333,8 +335,6 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > >  
> > >  		of_node_put(node);
> > >  	} else {
> > > -		if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, cpu_id, &isa))
> > > -			print_isa(m, isa);
> > >  
> > 
> > Extra blank line here to remove. Actually the whole 'else' can be removed
> > because the print_mmu() call can be brought up above the
> > 'if (acpi_disabled)'
> 
> Can it be? I intentionally did not make that change - wasn't sure
> whether re-ordering the fields in there was permissible.

I agree we shouldn't change the order, but moving print_mmu() up won't,
afaict.

> 
> One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
> https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
> and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
> vendor/uarch ordering.
> 
> Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
> fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
> not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
> sympathy for naively parsing it.

Yes, it would be nice for ACPI to be consistent. I'm not sure what can be
done about that.

Thanks,
drew

> 
> > >  		print_mmu(m);
>