[RFC PATCH 02/14] RISC-V: Add SBI STA extension definitions

[Conor Dooley]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 10:15:54AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 07:43:51PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 12:33:50PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > The SBI STA extension enables steal-time accounting. Add the
> > > definitions it specifies.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > > index 945b7be249c1..485b9ec20399 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ enum sbi_ext_id {
> > >  	SBI_EXT_HSM = 0x48534D,
> > >  	SBI_EXT_SRST = 0x53525354,
> > >  	SBI_EXT_PMU = 0x504D55,
> > > +	SBI_EXT_STA = 0x535441,
> > 
> > What is the sort order of this? Matching the spec ordering, or just
> > append-at-the-end?
> 
> I don't believe there's an established order. I've been going for spec
> order, I think.
> 
> > 
> > Unrelated, but in checking that I saw that your SUSP stuff is in
> > master - you planning on resending that series?
> 
> I think I need to wait until it's been ratified.
> 
> > 
> > Anyways, this does match the docs - but I'm quite hesitant to leave an
> > R-b when it's not merged yet.
> 
> I could take your R-b now, and then if the spec changes, I'd drop it
> when reposting the PoC after reworking it.

Yah, sure.
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>

Thanks,
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/20230419/38456429/attachment.sig>