[PATCH v1] RISC-V: hwprobe: sort EXT_KEY()s in hwprobe_isa_ext0() alphabetically

[Clément Léger]

On 17/07/2024 15:42, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 03:34:06PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>> On 17/07/2024 10:54, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
>>>
>>> Currently the entries appear to be in a random order (although according
>>> to Palmer he has tried to sort them by key value) which makes it harder
>>> to find entries in a growing list, and more likely to have conflicts as
>>> all patches are adding to the end of the list. Sort them alphabetically
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
>>>  		if (has_fpu()) {
>>> -			EXT_KEY(ZFH);
>>> -			EXT_KEY(ZFHMIN);
>>> -			EXT_KEY(ZFA);
>>>  			EXT_KEY(ZCD);
>>>  			EXT_KEY(ZCF);
>>> +			EXT_KEY(ZFA);
>>> +			EXT_KEY(ZFH);
>>> +			EXT_KEY(ZFHMIN);
>>>  		}
>>>  #undef EXT_KEY
>>>  	}
>>
>> I'd prefer that to be done after removing the "if
>> (has_vector()/has_fpu()) by using the .validate callback for ISA
>> extension. This way, you'll have only a single commit reordering everything.
> 
> Right, and I do have some WIP for that here
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/log/?h=validate_fpu_and_vector
> but won't be sending that until it's cleaned up after the merge window.
> I was intentionally sending this during it so that there would be no
> moving pieces for this to conflict with - because it will conflict with
> any other patch adding things to the list tails.

Makes sense. If you think it's worth it:

Reviewed-by: Clément Léger <cleger at rivosinc.com>

Thanks,

Clément