[RFC PATCH v1 08/11] riscv: hwprobe: Introduce rva23u64 base behavior
Andrew Jones
andrew.jones at oss.qualcomm.com
Fri Mar 6 10:31:06 PST 2026
On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 08:29:24PM +0800, Guodong Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 8:03 AM Andrew Jones
> <andrew.jones at oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 06:51:25PM +0800, Guodong Xu wrote:
> > > Hi, Drew
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 8:24 AM Andrew Jones
> > > <andrew.jones at oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Provide a bit to conveniently determine when RVA23U64 is supported.
> > > > While it's already possible to determine RVA23U64 support with five
> > > > hwprobe calls and four prctl calls it would be error-prone to require
> > > > anything (and we presume eventually almost everything) that needs to
> > > > check for RVA23U64 support to all implement those calls and specific
> > > > checks. And, while RVA23U64 is the IMA base with mandated extensions,
> > > > most software will consider it a new base. For these reasons, add
> > > > the RVA23U64 bit as a base behavior bit.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones at oss.qualcomm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > +#define HWPROBE_EXT0_RVA23U64 ( \
> > > > + /* IMA is always supported */ \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C | \
> > > > + /* B is Zba, Zbb and Zbs */ \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBB | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBS | \
> > > > + /* ZICSR is always supported */ \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICNTR | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZIHPM | \
> > > > + /* ZICCIF is in EXT1 */ \
> > > > + /* ZICCRSE is in EXT1 */ \
> > > > + /* ZICCAMOA is in EXT1 */ \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICCLSM | \
> > > > + /* ZA64RS is in EXT1 */ \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE | \
> > > > + /* ZIC64B (check block sizes are 64b) */ \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOM | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOP | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICBOZ | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZFHMIN | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZKT | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_V | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZVFHMIN | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZVBB | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZVKT | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZIHINTNTL | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICOND | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZIMOP | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZCMOP | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZCB | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZFA | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZAWRS | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_SUPM /* (check PMLEN=7 support) */ \
> > > > +)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define HWPROBE_EXT1_RVA23U64 ( \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICCIF | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICCRSE | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZICCAMOA | \
> > > > + RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZA64RS \
> > > > +)
> > > > +
> > > > +static bool hwprobe_has_rva23u64(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct riscv_hwprobe pair;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT))
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Additional mandates for Zic64b and Supm */
> > > > + if (riscv_cbom_block_size != 64 ||
> > > > + riscv_cbop_block_size != 64 ||
> > > > + riscv_cboz_block_size != 64 ||
> > > > + !riscv_have_user_pmlen_7)
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + hwprobe_isa_ext0(&pair, cpus);
> > > > + if ((pair.value & HWPROBE_EXT0_RVA23U64) != HWPROBE_EXT0_RVA23U64)
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + hwprobe_isa_ext1(&pair, cpus);
> > > > + if ((pair.value & HWPROBE_EXT1_RVA23U64) != HWPROBE_EXT1_RVA23U64)
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + return true;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > #if defined(CONFIG_RISCV_PROBE_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)
> > > > static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -312,6 +382,8 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
> > > > */
> > > > case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
> > > > pair->value = RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA;
> > > > + if (hwprobe_has_rva23u64(cpus))
> > > > + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_RVA23U64;
> > >
> > > There are two separate implementations of RVA23U64 detection in
> > > your patchset:
> > > 1. In this patch: hwprobe_has_rva23u64(), which checks against
> > > RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_* bits.
> > > 2. In [Patch 10/11]: riscv_set_isa_bases(), which checks against
> > > RISCV_ISA_EXT_*.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning behind this
> > > duplication (it's too obvious for me not to doubt myself).
> >
> > We purposely use hwprobe bits in hwprobe since we want to ensure
> > consistency. We use the isa bits everywhere else as that's the
> > typical place to check.
> >
> > > At
> > > least for now, I think the hwprobe version is not good from an
> > > architecture viewpoint.
> > >
> > > My logic is this: RVA23U64 is a hardware implementation feature.
> > > It exists no matter whether you export its sub-components (those
> > > mandatory extensions required by RVA23 Profile) through hwprobe or
> > > not. Profile conformance vs. per-extension export should stay
> > > independent.
> > >
> > > DT/ACPI -> RISCV_ISA_EXT_*: these are ground truth.
> > > RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_*: these are a filtered subset.
> > >
> > > We shouldn't be pushed to export (hwprobe) an extension just
> > > to make the RVA23U64 calculation correct. The criteria for
> > > exporting an extension through hwprobe should be based on
> > > whether there is a userspace consumer who needs it
> > > individually.
> >
> > I agree with the "only publish stuff in hwprobe that users care about"
> > approach and we do have precedent for not publishing extensions covered
> > by the base already (I, M, and A are not individually in hwprobe --
> > although they are in hwcap).
> >
> > For this series I could drop any extensions that people are unlikely to
>
> I am not sure I understand you correctly. If any of the HWPROBE_EXT_ id
> is dropped, that will make your check in hwprobe_has_rva23u64() fail.
>
> And that will cause a mismatch, where /proc/cpuinfo (ie.
> riscv_set_isa_bases()) reports 'rva23u64', but hwprobe reports
> no 'rva23u64'.
>
> Is that what you intend, or do you mean something different?
The implementation of hwprobe_has_rva23u64() would have to change and all
my consistency stuff, including the selftest, would be dropped.
Thanks,
drew
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list