Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-163916-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <770710b3-2495-41a6-9822-d9af9b13cef5@rivosinc.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 14:33:46 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.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
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>
 <20240430-gratuity-refinish-29abb136c958@wendy>
Content-Language: en-US
From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgTMOpZ2Vy?= <cleger@rivosinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240430-gratuity-refinish-29abb136c958@wendy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 30/04/2024 14:12, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:58:11PM +0200, Clément Léger 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.

Acked. So indeed, validate() callback for F/V dependent extensions makes
sense.

Clément