Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-163903-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:12:32 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Cl=E9ment_L=E9ger?= <cleger@rivosinc.com>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Paul
 Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Krzysztof
 Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Anup Patel
	<anup@brainfault.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Atish Patra
	<atishp@atishpatra.org>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation
Message-ID: <20240430-gratuity-refinish-29abb136c958@wendy>
References: <20240429150553.625165-1-cleger@rivosinc.com>
 <20240429150553.625165-3-cleger@rivosinc.com>
 <20240429-subtext-tabby-3a1532f058a5@spud>
 <5d5febd5-d113-4e8c-9535-9e75acf23398@rivosinc.com>
 <20240430-payable-famished-6711765d5ca4@wendy>
 <dbcf0be9-eae6-4776-bc5b-c6fad58df9c3@rivosinc.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8ucTtHBCJgf8Riu/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dbcf0be9-eae6-4776-bc5b-c6fad58df9c3@rivosinc.com>

--8ucTtHBCJgf8Riu/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:58:11PM +0200, Cl=E9ment L=E9ger wrote:
> Yeah, see what you mean. I think we also need to define if we want to
> expose all the ISA extensions in /proc/cpuinfo (ie no matter the config
> of the kernel) or not. If so, additional validate() callback would make
> sense. If we want to keep the full ISA string in /proc/info, then we
> will need another way of doing so.

If extensions aren't usable, they shouldn't be in /proc/cpuinfo either
as there's programs that parse that to figure out what they can use,
possibly even only checking a single cpu and using that as gospel.
That's why there's that per-hart-isa thing that was added by one of your
colleagues last year.

--8ucTtHBCJgf8Riu/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZjDgMAAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0neYAQC5KDKxLwVlxUktx/6ZGxEKZ7t0/TmIWfR2P7wsLDIFPQD/YOo01ylZOQ90
q2ipRVfjcUwY9iXnlr4411pWO+cJBAA=
=u/5V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8ucTtHBCJgf8Riu/--