[PATCH v2 2/7] RISC-V: Detect AIA CSRs from ISA string

[Conor Dooley]

Hey Anup, Palmer,

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:31:01PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 5:54 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:27:32 PST (-0800), apatel at ventanamicro.com wrote:
> > > We have two extension names for AIA ISA support: Smaia (M-mode AIA CSRs)
> > > and Ssaia (S-mode AIA CSRs).
> >
> > This has pretty much the same problem that we had with the other
> > AIA-related ISA string patches, where there's that ambiguity with the
> > non-ratified chapters.  IIRC when this came up in GCC the rough idea was
> > to try and document that we're going to interpret the standard ISA
> > strings that way, but now that we're doing custom ISA extensions it
> > seems saner to just define on here that removes the ambiguity.
> >
> > I just sent
> > <https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230203001201.14770-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/>
> > which documents that.
> 
> I am not sure why you say that these are custom extensions.
> 
> Multiple folks have clarified that both Smaia and Ssaia are frozen
> ISA extensions as-per RVI process. The individual chapters which
> are in the draft state have nothing to do with Smaia and Ssaia CSRs.
> 
> Please refer:
> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aia/pull/36
> https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-aia/message/336
> https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-aia/message/337

All of these links seem to discuss the draft chapters somehow being
incompatible with the non-draft ones. I would very expect that that,
as pointed out in several places there, that the draft chapters
finalisation would not lead to meaningful (and incompatible!) changes
being made to the non-draft chapters.

Maybe yourself and Palmer are looking at this from different
perspectives? Looking at his patch from Friday:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230203001201.14770-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/
He specifically mentioned this aspect, as opposed to the aspect that
your links refer to.

Surely a duo-plic, if that ever comes to be, could be detected from
compatible strings in DT or w/e - but how do you intend differentiating
between an implementation of S*aia that contains the IOMMU support in
Chapter 9 in a finalised form, versus an implementation that may make
"different decisions" when it comes to that chapter of the spec?
I thought that would be handled by extension versions, but I am told
that those are not a thing any more.
If that's not true, and there'll be a version number that we can pull in
from a DT and parse which will distinguish between the two, then please
correct my misunderstanding here!

Thanks,
Conor.

> > > We extend the ISA string parsing to detect Smaia and Ssaia extensions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <apatel at ventanamicro.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 2 ++
> > >  arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c        | 2 ++
> > >  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 ++
> > >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > > index 86328e3acb02..341ef30a3718 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > > @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ enum riscv_isa_ext_id {
> > >       RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE,
> > >       RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC,
> > >       RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL,
> > > +     RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMAIA,
> > > +     RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSAIA,
> > >       RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID_MAX
> > >  };
> > >  static_assert(RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID_MAX <= RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX);
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > > index 1b9a5a66e55a..a215ec929160 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> > > @@ -162,6 +162,8 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init);
> > >   *    extensions by an underscore.
> > >   */
> > >  static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = {
> > > +     __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(smaia, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMAIA),
> > > +     __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(ssaia, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSAIA),
> >
> > This will conflict with that ISA string refactoring I just merged.  It
> > should be a pretty mechanical merge conflict, but if you want we can do
> > a shared tag with the first few patches and I can handle the merge
> > conflict locally.
> 
> I am planning to send this series as a second PR for Linux-6.3 after your
> PR (which includes ISA string refactoring) is merged. Is that okay with you?
> 
> With that said, it would request you to ACK this patch as well.
> 
> >
> > >       __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),
> > >       __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
> > >       __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > index 93e45560af30..3c5b51f519d5 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > @@ -228,6 +228,8 @@ void __init riscv_fill_hwcap(void)
> > >                               SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("zihintpause", RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE);
> > >                               SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("sstc", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC);
> > >                               SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("svinval", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL);
> > > +                             SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("smaia", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMAIA);
> > > +                             SET_ISA_EXT_MAP("ssaia", RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSAIA);
> > >                       }
> > >  #undef SET_ISA_EXT_MAP
> > >               }
> 
> Thanks,
> Anup
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20230207/a36994ab/attachment.sig>