[PATCH 0/4] Expose the isa-string via the AT_BASE_PLATFORM aux vector

[Philipp Tomsich]

[Resend, as my mail client hadn't picked up that it should respond as
plain-text.]

On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 19:32, Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich at vrull.eu> wrote:
>
> Evan,
>
> On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 18:50, Evan Green <evan at rivosinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 3:31 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Am Dienstag, 2. Mai 2023, 19:15:29 CEST schrieb Palmer Dabbelt:
>> > > On Tue, 02 May 2023 02:13:10 PDT (-0700), philipp.tomsich at vrull.eu wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 09:58, Björn Töpel <bjorn at kernel.org> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich at vrull.eu> writes:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > It is a pity that the current interface was designed without involving
>> > > >> > RVI (and that I had to ask my team to put together a patch set for
>> > > >> > further discussion, given that none of the other major vendors in RVI
>> > > >> > stepped forward).  I guarantee that plenty of reviewers would have
>> > > >> > highlighted that a central registry (even if it is just a kernel
>> > > >> > header) should be avoided.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Are you claiming that the hwprobe work was not done in the open, but
>> > > >> secretly merged? That is not only incorrect, but rude to upstream RISC-V
>> > > >> Linux developers. I suggest you review how you interact with upstream
>> > > >> kernel work.
>> > > >
>> > > > Please don't put words into my mouth...
>> > > >
>> > > > I was merely pointing out that there was no engagement by the RVI
>> > > > member companies (in regard to this mechanism) within RVI, which would
>> > > > have prevented Jessica's issue.
>> > > > This would have also helped to address the concerns on vendor-defined
>> > > > extensions.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also who do you refer to when you say "how _you_ interact"?  If it is
>> > > > RVI that you refer to: it doesn't interact with upstream work
>> > > > directly, as it doesn't own any engineering resources.
>> > > > RVI provides a forum for member companies to come to an
>> > > > understanding/design and then have the member companies perform the
>> > > > work and take it upstream.
>> > >
>> > > I'm not even sure what you're looking for here: if RVI doesn't want to
>> > > work upstream, then complaining that RVI isn't part of upstream
>> > > discussions is pretty pointless.
>> > >
>> > > >> Why didn't RVI get involved in the review of the series? The expectation
>> > > >> cannot be that all open source projects go to RVI, but rather the other
>> > > >> way around.
>> > > >
>> > > > That is exactly the point I was making and which you seem to miss: RVI
>> > > > does not own any engineering resources and depends solely on its
>> > > > member companies to project into open source projects.
>> > > >
>> > > >> Take a look at commit ea3de9ce8aa2 ("RISC-V: Add a syscall for HW
>> > > >> probing"). Your team was very much involved in the review.
>> > > >
>> > > > I am aware, as I had reviewed and commented on these are well.
>> > > > And my only request (was and) is that we need to figure out a way to
>> > > > efficiently deal with vendor-defined extensions.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe you should go talk to you team, then?  Handling vendor extensions
>> > > via hwprobe has been discussed, sounds like you're confused again.
>> >
>> > I too have this vague memory of us talking about vendor extensions,
>> > but my memory is really bad for stuff like this, so I spent the morning
>> > combing through all the hwprobe iterations looking for it, but so far
>> > have only found
>> >
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALs-HstoeoTWjTEZrLWouCgwq0t3tDB6uL=tB68RJDs1ub4Frw@mail.gmail.com/
>> >
>> > I'm most likely just blind, but does someone have another pointer?
>>
>> Hello! That's probably the only pointer.
>
>
> Thanks for following up, as we were debating internally if and what discussions we had missed.
>
>>
>> Couldn't handling vendor extensions within the hwprobe framework be as
>> straightforward as explicitly carving out a region for them? Say
>> 0x8000000000000000+ belongs to the vendor? The layout of keys within
>> the vendor hwprobe region then depends on the value in mvendorid (and
>> if the vendor so chooses, archid and impid as well). Then vendors can
>> expose keys to their hearts (avoiding the dumb pun there) content.
>>
>> We can probably skip caching the vendor keys in the vDSO for now. If
>> it really needs to be done we can add it later.
>>
>> This would enforce that there's only one "vendor" at a time for a
>> given hart, but I think that's reasonable. Let me know what you think.
>
>
> We generally try to treat vendor-extensions as "vendor-defined" and not "vendor-specific".  In other words, an implementor would be free to implement XVentanaCondOp and XTHeadVDot.  While we could simply alias things into the implementor's "vendor"-space, I see some benefits to having a unique id for every vendor-defined property…
>
> Could we use ( 0x8000000000000000 | vendor-id << VENDOR_SHIFT | key-in-vendor-space )?
> If so, do we have vendor-ids allocated today that we could use for this purpose?
>
> Thanks,
> Philipp.
>
>>
>>
>> -Evan