Message ID | 20221130234125.2722364-2-conor@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Series | Putting some basic order on isa extension lists | expand |
Context | Check | Description |
---|---|---|
conchuod/patch_count | success | Link |
conchuod/cover_letter | success | Series has a cover letter |
conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next |
conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
conchuod/build_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
conchuod/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 58 lines checked |
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 Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:41:24PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > While the current list of rules may have been accurate when created > it now lacks some clarity in the face of isa-manual updates. Instead of > trying to continuously align this rule-set with the one in the > specifications, change the role of this comment. > > This particular comment is important, as the array it "decorates" > defines the order in which the ISA string appears to userspace in > /proc/cpuinfo. > > Re-jig and strengthen the wording to provide contributors with a set > order in which to add entries & note why this particular struct needs > more attention than others. > > While in the area, add some whitespace and tweak some wording for > readability's sake. > > Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > --- > arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > index 852ecccd8920..68b2bd0cc3bc 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -120,22 +120,45 @@ device_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init); > .uprop = #UPROP, \ > .isa_ext_id = EXTID, \ > } > + > /* > - * Here are the ordering rules of extension naming defined by RISC-V > - * specification : > - * 1. All extensions should be separated from other multi-letter extensions > - * by an underscore. > - * 2. The first letter following the 'Z' conventionally indicates the most > + * The canonical order of ISA extension names in the ISA string is defined in > + * chapter 27 of the unprivileged specification. > + * > + * Ordinarily, for in-kernel data structures, this order is unimportant but > + * isa_ext_arr defines the order of the ISA string in /proc/cpuinfo. > + * > + * The specification uses vague wording, such as should, when it comes to > + * ordering so for our purposes the following rules apply: > + * > + * 1. All multi-letter extensions must be separated from other multi-letter 1. All multi-letter extensions must be separated from other extensions by an underscore. (Because we always lead multi-letter extensions with underscore, even the first one, which follows the single-letter extensions.) > + * extensions by an underscore. > + * > + * 2. Additional standard extensions (starting with 'Z') must be sorted after > + * single-letter extensions and before any higher-privileged extensions. > + > + * 3. The first letter following the 'Z' conventionally indicates the most > * closely related alphabetical extension category, IMAFDQLCBKJTPVH. > - * If multiple 'Z' extensions are named, they should be ordered first > - * by category, then alphabetically within a category. > - * 3. Standard supervisor-level extensions (starts with 'S') should be > - * listed after standard unprivileged extensions. If multiple > - * supervisor-level extensions are listed, they should be ordered > + * If multiple 'Z' extensions are named, they should be ordered first by > + * category, then alphabetically within a category. > + * > + * 3. Standard supervisor-level extensions (starting with 'S') must be listed > + * after standard unprivileged extensions. If multiple > + * supervisor-level extensions are listed, they must be ordered > * alphabetically. > - * 4. Non-standard extensions (starts with 'X') must be listed after all > - * standard extensions. They must be separated from other multi-letter > - * extensions by an underscore. > + * > + * 4. Standard machine-level extensions (starting with 'Zxm') must be listed > + * after any lower-privileged, standard extensions. If multiple > + * machine-level extensions are listed, they must be ordered > + * alphabetically. > + * > + * 5. Non-standard extensions (starts with 'X') must be listed after all > + * standard extensions. ^and alphabetically. > + * > + * An example string following the order is: > + * rv64imadc_zifoo_zigoo_zafoo_sbar_scar_zxmbaz_xqux_xrux > + * > + * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above. > */ > static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = { > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF), > -- > 2.38.1 > Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Thanks, drew
On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 09:27:43AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:41:24PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > > > While the current list of rules may have been accurate when created > > it now lacks some clarity in the face of isa-manual updates. Instead of > > trying to continuously align this rule-set with the one in the > > specifications, change the role of this comment. > > > > This particular comment is important, as the array it "decorates" > > defines the order in which the ISA string appears to userspace in > > /proc/cpuinfo. > > > > Re-jig and strengthen the wording to provide contributors with a set > > order in which to add entries & note why this particular struct needs > > more attention than others. > > > > While in the area, add some whitespace and tweak some wording for > > readability's sake. > > > > Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > > --- > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > > index 852ecccd8920..68b2bd0cc3bc 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > > @@ -120,22 +120,45 @@ device_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init); > > .uprop = #UPROP, \ > > .isa_ext_id = EXTID, \ > > } > > + > > /* > > - * Here are the ordering rules of extension naming defined by RISC-V > > - * specification : > > - * 1. All extensions should be separated from other multi-letter extensions > > - * by an underscore. > > - * 2. The first letter following the 'Z' conventionally indicates the most > > + * The canonical order of ISA extension names in the ISA string is defined in > > + * chapter 27 of the unprivileged specification. > > + * > > + * Ordinarily, for in-kernel data structures, this order is unimportant but > > + * isa_ext_arr defines the order of the ISA string in /proc/cpuinfo. > > + * > > + * The specification uses vague wording, such as should, when it comes to > > + * ordering so for our purposes the following rules apply: > > + * > > + * 1. All multi-letter extensions must be separated from other multi-letter > > 1. All multi-letter extensions must be separated from other extensions by an > underscore. > > (Because we always lead multi-letter extensions with underscore, even the > first one, which follows the single-letter extensions.) Yah, I need to think as if I am using De Morgan's... The DT ABI requires "should" and permits this. The uAPI is "must"/"will" and always has an _. I'll propagate that change to the docs patch too. > > + * extensions by an underscore. > > + * > > + * 2. Additional standard extensions (starting with 'Z') must be sorted after > > + * single-letter extensions and before any higher-privileged extensions. > > + > > + * 3. The first letter following the 'Z' conventionally indicates the most > > * closely related alphabetical extension category, IMAFDQLCBKJTPVH. > > - * If multiple 'Z' extensions are named, they should be ordered first > > - * by category, then alphabetically within a category. > > - * 3. Standard supervisor-level extensions (starts with 'S') should be > > - * listed after standard unprivileged extensions. If multiple > > - * supervisor-level extensions are listed, they should be ordered > > + * If multiple 'Z' extensions are named, they should be ordered first by > > + * category, then alphabetically within a category. > > + * > > + * 3. Standard supervisor-level extensions (starting with 'S') must be listed > > + * after standard unprivileged extensions. If multiple > > + * supervisor-level extensions are listed, they must be ordered > > * alphabetically. > > - * 4. Non-standard extensions (starts with 'X') must be listed after all > > - * standard extensions. They must be separated from other multi-letter > > - * extensions by an underscore. > > + * > > + * 4. Standard machine-level extensions (starting with 'Zxm') must be listed > > + * after any lower-privileged, standard extensions. If multiple > > + * machine-level extensions are listed, they must be ordered > > + * alphabetically. > > + * > > + * 5. Non-standard extensions (starts with 'X') must be listed after all > > + * standard extensions. > ^and alphabetically. "If multiple non-standard extensions are listed, they must be ordered alphabetically." I'll also propagate this to the doc one, if I have not already. > Otherwise, > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Cool. I'll give it a bit before respinning, but I think we are at least getting less ambiguous as time goes on.. Thanks, Conor.
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c index 852ecccd8920..68b2bd0cc3bc 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c @@ -120,22 +120,45 @@ device_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init); .uprop = #UPROP, \ .isa_ext_id = EXTID, \ } + /* - * Here are the ordering rules of extension naming defined by RISC-V - * specification : - * 1. All extensions should be separated from other multi-letter extensions - * by an underscore. - * 2. The first letter following the 'Z' conventionally indicates the most + * The canonical order of ISA extension names in the ISA string is defined in + * chapter 27 of the unprivileged specification. + * + * Ordinarily, for in-kernel data structures, this order is unimportant but + * isa_ext_arr defines the order of the ISA string in /proc/cpuinfo. + * + * The specification uses vague wording, such as should, when it comes to + * ordering so for our purposes the following rules apply: + * + * 1. All multi-letter extensions must be separated from other multi-letter + * extensions by an underscore. + * + * 2. Additional standard extensions (starting with 'Z') must be sorted after + * single-letter extensions and before any higher-privileged extensions. + + * 3. The first letter following the 'Z' conventionally indicates the most * closely related alphabetical extension category, IMAFDQLCBKJTPVH. - * If multiple 'Z' extensions are named, they should be ordered first - * by category, then alphabetically within a category. - * 3. Standard supervisor-level extensions (starts with 'S') should be - * listed after standard unprivileged extensions. If multiple - * supervisor-level extensions are listed, they should be ordered + * If multiple 'Z' extensions are named, they should be ordered first by + * category, then alphabetically within a category. + * + * 3. Standard supervisor-level extensions (starting with 'S') must be listed + * after standard unprivileged extensions. If multiple + * supervisor-level extensions are listed, they must be ordered * alphabetically. - * 4. Non-standard extensions (starts with 'X') must be listed after all - * standard extensions. They must be separated from other multi-letter - * extensions by an underscore. + * + * 4. Standard machine-level extensions (starting with 'Zxm') must be listed + * after any lower-privileged, standard extensions. If multiple + * machine-level extensions are listed, they must be ordered + * alphabetically. + * + * 5. Non-standard extensions (starts with 'X') must be listed after all + * standard extensions. + * + * An example string following the order is: + * rv64imadc_zifoo_zigoo_zafoo_sbar_scar_zxmbaz_xqux_xrux + * + * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above. */ static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = { __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),