[PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation

[Clément Léger]

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