[PATCH v1 1/9] RISC-V: don't parse dt/acpi isa string to get rv32/rv64

[Conor Dooley]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 01:32:23PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:16:09PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:05:40PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 04:51:29PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > > > One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
> > > > https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
> > > > and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
> > > > vendor/uarch ordering.
> > > > 
> > > > Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
> > > > fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
> > > > not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
> > > > sympathy for naively parsing it.
> > > 
> > > Yes, it would be nice for ACPI to be consistent. I'm not sure what can be
> > > done about that.
> > 
> > Print "unknown", until there's a way of passing the info?
> > Speaking of being an eejit, adding new fields to the file would probably
> > break some really naive parsers & quite frankly that sort of thing can
> > keep the pieces IMO. Ditto if adding more extensions breaks someone that
> > expects _zicbom_zicboz that breaks when _zicbop is slid into the middle.

> Instead of unknown, could you print "risc-v" or "riscv"?

I don't really see how that is better. "riscv" is not the uarch or
vendor. If we don't know, we should either say we don't know or omit the
field IMO.

Cheers,
Conor.
-------------- 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/20230627/fc13b902/attachment.sig>