Message ID | 20230509182504.2997252-4-evan@rivosinc.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Commit | c0baf321038d5fa4273c0dc495d78f39848dd8fc |
Delegated to: | Palmer Dabbelt |
Headers | show |
Series | RISC-V: Export Zba, Zbb to usermode via hwprobe | expand |
Context | Check | Description |
---|---|---|
conchuod/cover_letter | success | Series has a cover letter |
conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next at HEAD ac9a78681b92 |
conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
conchuod/maintainers_pattern | success | MAINTAINERS pattern errors before the patch: 6 and now 6 |
conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
conchuod/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 249 this patch: 249 |
conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 918 this patch: 918 |
conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 3 this patch: 3 |
conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
conchuod/checkpatch | warning | CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro |
conchuod/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
conchuod/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 11:25:03AM -0700, Evan Green wrote: > + if (riscv_isa_extension_available(isainfo->isa, ZBA)) > + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA; > + else > + missing |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA; Part of me wonders if we should just have a macro for this, since it's just boilerplate w/ the only "variable" being the extension name. Just a thought, and we'll have plenty more cracks at changing things here, so: Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> Thanks, Conor.
Am Dienstag, 9. Mai 2023, 20:25:03 CEST schrieb Evan Green: > Add two new bits to the IMA_EXT_0 key for ZBA, ZBB, and ZBS extensions. > These are accurately reported per CPU. > > Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> though a part of me wonders, what happened to Zbc ;-)
On Wed, 10 May 2023 07:47:54 PDT (-0700), heiko@sntech.de wrote: > Am Dienstag, 9. Mai 2023, 20:25:03 CEST schrieb Evan Green: >> Add two new bits to the IMA_EXT_0 key for ZBA, ZBB, and ZBS extensions. >> These are accurately reported per CPU. >> >> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com> >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > > Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> This one too. > though a part of me wonders, what happened to Zbc ;-) I think we all just keep forgetting about it as this round of HW has missed out on it. If you care enough to send a patch I'm happy to pick it up ;)
diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst index 9f0dd62dcb5d..fb25670ef0e5 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst @@ -64,6 +64,16 @@ The following keys are defined: * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C`: The C extension is supported, as defined by version 2.2 of the RISC-V ISA manual. + * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA`: The Zba address generation extension is + supported, as defined in version 1.0 of the Bit-Manipulation ISA + extensions. + + * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBB`: The Zbb extension is supported, as defined + in version 1.0 of the Bit-Manipulation ISA extensions. + + * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBS`: The Zbs extension is supported, as defined + in version 1.0 of the Bit-Manipulation ISA extensions. + * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0`: A bitmask that contains performance information about the selected set of processors. diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h index 8d745a4ad8a2..853f8f6d9a42 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ struct riscv_hwprobe { #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0 4 #define RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD (1 << 0) #define RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C (1 << 1) +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA (1 << 2) +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBB (1 << 3) +#define RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBS (1 << 4) #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0 5 #define RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN (0 << 0) #define RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED (1 << 0) diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c index 5db29683ebee..fe655db19ab4 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c @@ -121,6 +121,46 @@ static void hwprobe_arch_id(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair, pair->value = id; } +static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair, + const struct cpumask *cpus) +{ + int cpu; + u64 missing = 0; + + pair->value = 0; + if (has_fpu()) + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD; + + if (riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c)) + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C; + + /* + * Loop through and record extensions that 1) anyone has, and 2) anyone + * doesn't have. + */ + for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) { + struct riscv_isainfo *isainfo = &hart_isa[cpu]; + + if (riscv_isa_extension_available(isainfo->isa, ZBA)) + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA; + else + missing |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA; + + if (riscv_isa_extension_available(isainfo->isa, ZBB)) + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBB; + else + missing |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBB; + + if (riscv_isa_extension_available(isainfo->isa, ZBS)) + pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBS; + else + missing |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBS; + } + + /* Now turn off reporting features if any CPU is missing it. */ + pair->value &= ~missing; +} + static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus) { int cpu; @@ -164,13 +204,7 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair, break; case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0: - pair->value = 0; - if (has_fpu()) - pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD; - - if (riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c)) - pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C; - + hwprobe_isa_ext0(pair, cpus); break; case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0: