Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-143198-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:26:10 -0700
From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
	Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Cl=E9ment_L=E9ger?= <cleger@rivosinc.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/19] riscv: hwcap: Add v to hwcap if xtheadvector
 enabled
Message-ID: <Zhl8wtc5ikM2Btjv@ghost>
References: <20240411-dev-charlie-support_thead_vector_6_9-v1-0-4af9815ec746@rivosinc.com>
 <20240411-dev-charlie-support_thead_vector_6_9-v1-15-4af9815ec746@rivosinc.com>
 <20240412-thrill-amnesty-019897f21466@wendy>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240412-thrill-amnesty-019897f21466@wendy>

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:37:08PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:11:21PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > xtheadvector is not vector 1.0 compatible, but it can leverage all of
> > the same save/restore routines as vector plus
> > riscv_v_first_use_handler(). vector 1.0 and xtheadvector are mutually
> > exclusive so there is no risk of overlap.
> 
> I think this not okay to do - if a program checks hwcap to see if vector
> is supported they'll get told it is on T-Head system where only the 0.7.1
> is.

That's fair. I did remove it from the hwprobe result but this is kind of
a gross way of doing it. I'll mess around with this so this isn't
necessary.

- Charlie

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > index 41a4d2028428..59f628b1341c 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > @@ -647,9 +647,13 @@ static void __init riscv_fill_hwcap_from_isa_string(unsigned long *isa2hwcap)
> >  		 * Many vendors with T-Head CPU cores which implement the 0.7.1
> >  		 * version of the vector specification put "v" into their DTs.
> >  		 * CPU cores with the ratified spec will contain non-zero
> > -		 * marchid.
> > +		 * marchid. Only allow "v" to be set if xtheadvector is present.
> >  		 */
> > -		if (acpi_disabled && this_vendorid == THEAD_VENDOR_ID &&
> > +		if (__riscv_isa_vendor_extension_available(isavendorinfo->isa,
> > +							   RISCV_ISA_VENDOR_EXT_XTHEADVECTOR)) {
> > +			this_hwcap |= isa2hwcap[RISCV_ISA_EXT_v];
> > +			set_bit(RISCV_ISA_EXT_v, isainfo->isa);
> > +		} else if (acpi_disabled && this_vendorid == THEAD_VENDOR_ID &&
> >  		    this_archid == 0x0) {
> >  			this_hwcap &= ~isa2hwcap[RISCV_ISA_EXT_v];
> >  			clear_bit(RISCV_ISA_EXT_v, isainfo->isa);
> > @@ -776,6 +780,15 @@ static int __init riscv_fill_hwcap_from_ext_list(unsigned long *isa2hwcap)
> >  
> >  		of_node_put(cpu_node);
> >  
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Enable kernel vector routines if xtheadvector is present
> > +		 */
> > +		if (__riscv_isa_vendor_extension_available(isavendorinfo->isa,
> > +							   RISCV_ISA_VENDOR_EXT_XTHEADVECTOR)) {
> > +			this_hwcap |= isa2hwcap[RISCV_ISA_EXT_v];
> > +			set_bit(RISCV_ISA_EXT_v, isainfo->isa);
> > +		}
> > +
> >  		/*
> >  		 * All "okay" harts should have same isa. Set HWCAP based on
> >  		 * common capabilities of every "okay" hart, in case they don't.
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.44.0
> >