On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 02:25:26PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:50:32PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 06:03:19PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:18:21AM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
All of the supported vendor extensions that have been listed in riscv_isa_vendor_ext_list can be exported through /proc/cpuinfo.
Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins charlie@rivosinc.com
This seems fine, thanks for updating this interface :)
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
Hmm, actually the automation on patchwork is complaining a bunch about the series, but I think that's mostly false positives except for this patch. The nommu defconfigs are prob the easiest way to reproduce this: /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:41:55: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'vendor_bitmap' /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:42:60: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'per_hart_vendor_bitmap'; did you mean 'per_hart_isa_bitmap'? /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:43:60: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'bitmap_size'
Cheers, Conor.
The false negatives always throw me off.
Aye, it's pretty frustrating for me trying to report anything. Any time a bunch of headers change produces a bunch of file rebuilds and therefore warnings. That should in theory be caught by the fact that we apply the patch & build, jump back to HEAD~1, build that & grab the "before" warning state and then jump forward, rebuild the patch and gather the "after" state. The idea is that that is an apples:apples comparison as the same files will need to be rebuilt for both but it is falling over somewhere. Maybe I'll have time to look into that soonTM.
The errors are also offset by one patch.
Ye, that's my bad I think. In a rush off to another patch before the thought I had on it left my brain and just pressed reply on the wrong email. Sorry bout that :)
This was actually introduced in the following patch "riscv: Introduce vendor variants of extension helpers" because I accidentally fixed this issue in the patch "riscv: cpufeature: Extract common elements from extension checking" instead of the one it was introduced in.