[PATCH v4 3/6] RISC-V: hwprobe: Add support for RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA

[Conor Dooley]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:32:17AM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> We have an implicit set of base behaviors that userspace depends on,
> which are mostly defined in various ISA specifications.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan at rivosinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>

> @@ -125,6 +126,25 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
>  	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_MIMPID:
>  		hwprobe_arch_id(pair, cpus);
>  		break;
> +	/*
> +	 * The kernel already assumes that the base single-letter ISA
> +	 * extensions are supported on all harts, and only supports the
> +	 * IMA base, so just cheat a bit here and tell that to
> +	 * userspace.
> +	 */
> +	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
> +		pair->value = RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> +		pair->value = 0;
> +		if (has_fpu())
> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
> +
> +		if (elf_hwcap & RISCV_ISA_EXT_c)

Random thought while reviewing another patch, and I kinda felt a bit
stupid following the existing code to try and make sure, but should this
become a call to riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c)?
It may be nice to propagate that helper, if it works, than check the bit
directly.

Cheers,
Conor.

> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
> +
> +		break;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * For forward compatibility, unknown keys don't fail the whole
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 
-------------- 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/20230322/2cae4838/attachment.sig>