[PATCH v2] RISC-V: remove I-extension ISA spec version dance

[Conor Dooley]

From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>

The spec folk, in their infinite wisdom, moved both control and status
registers & the FENCE.I instructions out of the I extension into their
own extensions (Zicsr, Zifencei) in the 20190608 version of the ISA
spec [0].
The GCC/binutils crew decided [1] to move their default version of the
ISA spec to the 20191213 version of the ISA spec, which came into being
for version 2.38 of binutils and GCC 12. Building with this toolchain
configuration would result in assembler issues:
  CC      arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.o
  <<BUILDDIR>>/arch/riscv/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h: Assembler messages:
  <<BUILDDIR>>/arch/riscv/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h:71: Error: unrecognized opcode `csrr a5,0xc01'
  <<BUILDDIR>>/arch/riscv/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h:71: Error: unrecognized opcode `csrr a5,0xc01'
  <<BUILDDIR>>/arch/riscv/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h:71: Error: unrecognized opcode `csrr a5,0xc01'
  <<BUILDDIR>>/arch/riscv/include/asm/vdso/gettimeofday.h:71: Error: unrecognized opcode `csrr a5,0xc01'
This was fixed in commit 6df2a016c0c8 ("riscv: fix build with binutils
2.38") by Aurelien Jarno, but has proven fragile.

Before LLVM 17, LLVM did not support these extensions and, as such, the
cc-option check added by Aurelien worked. Since commit 22e199e6afb1
("[RISCV] Accept zicsr and zifencei command line options") however, LLVM
*does* support them and the cc-option check passes.

This surfaced as a problem while building the 5.10 stable kernel using
the default Tuxmake Debian image [2], as 5.10 did not yet support ld.lld,
and uses the Debian provided binutils 2.35.
Versions of ld prior to 2.38 will refuse to link if they encounter
unknown ISA extensions, and unfortunately Zifencei is not supported by
bintuils 2.35.

Instead of dancing around with adding these extensions to march, as we
currently do, Palmer suggested locking GCC builds to the same version of
the ISA spec that is used by LLVM. As far as I can tell, that is 2.2,
with, apparently [3], a lack of interest in implementing a flag like
GCC's -misa-spec at present.

Add {cc,as}-option checks to add -misa-spec to KBUILD_{A,C}FLAGS when
GCC is used & remove the march dance.

As clang does not accept this argument, I had expected to encounter
issues with the assembler, as neither zicsr nor zifencei are present in
the ISA string and the spec version *should* be defaulting to a version
that requires them to be present. The build passed however and the
resulting kernel worked perfectly fine for me on a PolarFire SoC...

Link: https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/riscv-spec.pdf [0]
Link: https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/sw-dev/c/aE1ZeHHCYf4 [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+G9fYt9T=ELCLaB9byxaLW2Qf4pZcDO=huCA0D8ug2V2+irJQ@mail.gmail.com/ [2]
Link: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/specifying-unpriviledge-spec-version-misa-spec-gcc-flag-equivalent/66935 [3]
CC: stable at vger.kernel.org
Suggested-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at rivosinc.com>
Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju at linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
---
I think Aurelien's original commit message might actually not be quite
correct? I found, in my limited testing, that it is not the default
behaviour of gas that matters, but rather the toolchain itself?
My binutils versions (both those built using the clang-built-linux
tc-build scripts which do not set an ISA spec version, and one built
using the riscv-gnu-toolchain infra w/ an explicit 20191213 spec version
set) do not encounter these issues.
>From *my* testing, I was only able to reproduce the above build failures
because of *GCC* defaulting to a newer ISA spec version, and saw no
issues with CC=clang builds, where -misa-spec is not (AFAICT) passed to
gas.
I'm far from a toolchain person, so I am very very happy to have the
reason for that explained to me, as I've been scratching my head about
it all evening.

I'm also not super confident in my "as-option"ing, but it worked for me,
so it's gotta be perfect, right? riiight??

Changes from v1:
- entirely new approach to the issue
---
 arch/riscv/Makefile | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/Makefile b/arch/riscv/Makefile
index 6203c3378922..2df7a5dc071c 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/Makefile
+++ b/arch/riscv/Makefile
@@ -57,10 +57,8 @@ riscv-march-$(CONFIG_ARCH_RV64I)	:= rv64ima
 riscv-march-$(CONFIG_FPU)		:= $(riscv-march-y)fd
 riscv-march-$(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C)	:= $(riscv-march-y)c
 
-# Newer binutils versions default to ISA spec version 20191213 which moves some
-# instructions from the I extension to the Zicsr and Zifencei extensions.
-toolchain-need-zicsr-zifencei := $(call cc-option-yn, -march=$(riscv-march-y)_zicsr_zifencei)
-riscv-march-$(toolchain-need-zicsr-zifencei) := $(riscv-march-y)_zicsr_zifencei
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-misa-spec=2.2)
+KBUILD_AFLAGS += $(call as-option,-Wa$(comma)-misa-spec=2.2)
 
 # Check if the toolchain supports Zihintpause extension
 riscv-march-$(CONFIG_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_ZIHINTPAUSE) := $(riscv-march-y)_zihintpause
-- 
2.39.2