From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: "Clément Léger" <cleger@rivosinc.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
<kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:44:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240430-payable-famished-6711765d5ca4@wendy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5d5febd5-d113-4e8c-9535-9e75acf23398@rivosinc.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4415 bytes --]
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 09:18:47AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>
>
> On 30/04/2024 00:15, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 05:04:55PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> >> Since a few extensions (Zicbom/Zicboz) already needs validation and
> >> future ones will need it as well (Zc*) add a validate() callback to
> >> struct riscv_isa_ext_data. This require to rework the way extensions are
> >> parsed and split it in two phases. First phase is isa string or isa
> >> extension list parsing and consists in enabling all the extensions in a
> >> temporary bitmask without any validation. The second step "resolves" the
> >> final isa bitmap, handling potential missing dependencies. The mechanism
> >> is quite simple and simply validate each extension described in the
> >> temporary bitmap before enabling it in the final isa bitmap. validate()
> >> callbacks can return either 0 for success, -EPROBEDEFER if extension
> >> needs to be validated again at next loop. A previous ISA bitmap is kept
> >> to avoid looping mutliple times if an extension dependencies are never
> >> satisfied until we reach a stable state. In order to avoid any potential
> >> infinite looping, allow looping a maximum of the number of extension we
> >> handle. Zicboz and Zicbom extensions are modified to use this validation
> >> mechanism.
> >
> > Your reply to my last review only talked about part of my comments,
> > which is usually what you do when you're gonna implement the rest, but
> > you haven't.
> > I like the change you've made to shorten looping, but I'd at least like
> > a response to why a split is not worth doing :)
>
> Hi Conor,
>
> Missed that point since I was feeling that my solution actually
> addresses your concerns. Your argument was that there is no reason to
> loop for Zicbom/Zicboz but that would also apply to Zcf in case we are
> on RV64 as well (since zcf is not supported on RV64). So for Zcf, that
> would lead to using both mecanism or additional ifdefery with little to
> no added value since the current solution actually solves both cases:
>
> - We don't have any extra looping if all validation callback returns 0
> (except the initial one on riscv_isa_ext, which is kind of unavoidable).
> - Zicbom, Zicboz callbacks will be called only once (which was one of
> your concern).
>
> Adding a second kind of callback for after loop validation would only
> lead to a bunch of additional macros/ifdefery for extensions with
> validate() callback, with validate_end() or with both (ie Zcf)). For
> these reasons, I do not think there is a need for a separate mechanism
> nor additional callback for such extensions except adding extra code
> with no real added functionality.
>
> AFAIK, the platform driver probing mechanism works the same, the probe()
> callback is actually called even if for some reason properties are
> missing from nodes for platform devices and thus the probe() returns
> -EINVAL or whatever.
>
> Hope this answers your question,
Yeah, pretty much I am happy with just an "it's not worth doing it"
response. Given it wasn't your first choice, I doubt you're overly happy
with it either, but I really would like to avoid looping to closure to
sort out dependencies - particularly on the boot CPU before we bring
anyone else up, but if the code is now more proactive about breaking
out, I suppose that'll have to do :)
I kinda wish we didn't do this at all, but I think we've brought this
upon ourselves via hwprobe. I'm still on the fence as to whether things
that are implied need to be handled in this way. I think I'll bring this
up tomorrow at the weekly call, because so far it's only been you and I
discussing this really and it's a policy decision that hwprobe-ists
should be involved in I think.
Implied extensions aside, I think we will eventually need this stuff
anyway, for extensions that make no sense to consider if a config option
for a dependency is disabled.
From talking to Eric Biggers the other week about
riscv_isa_extension_available() I'm of the opinion that we need to do
better with that interface w.r.t. extension and config dependencies,
and what seems like a good idea to me at the moment is putting tests for
IS_ENABLED(RISCV_ISA_FOO) into these validate hooks.
I'll try to look at the actual implementation here tomorrow.
Cheers,
Conor.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-30 11:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-29 15:04 [PATCH v4 00/11] Add support for a few Zc* extensions as well as Zcmop Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] dt-bindings: riscv: add Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb ISA extension description Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation Clément Léger
2024-04-29 22:15 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-30 7:18 ` Clément Léger
2024-04-30 11:44 ` Conor Dooley [this message]
2024-04-30 11:58 ` Clément Léger
2024-04-30 12:12 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-30 12:33 ` Clément Léger
2024-05-14 7:53 ` Clément Léger
2024-05-14 12:43 ` Conor Dooley
2024-05-14 12:48 ` Clément Léger
2024-05-14 14:44 ` Conor Dooley
2024-05-14 17:39 ` Conor Dooley
2024-05-15 13:26 ` Clément Léger
2024-05-15 15:47 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] riscv: add ISA parsing for Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb Clément Léger
2024-05-01 9:32 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] riscv: hwprobe: export Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb ISA extensions Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] RISC-V: KVM: Allow Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb extensions for Guest/VM Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add some Zc* extensions to get-reg-list test Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] dt-bindings: riscv: add Zcmop ISA extension description Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] riscv: add ISA extension parsing for Zcmop Clément Léger
2024-05-01 9:33 ` Conor Dooley
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] riscv: hwprobe: export Zcmop ISA extension Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] RISC-V: KVM: Allow Zcmop extension for Guest/VM Clément Léger
2024-04-29 15:05 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] KVM: riscv: selftests: Add Zcmop extension to get-reg-list test Clément Léger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240430-payable-famished-6711765d5ca4@wendy \
--to=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=atishp@atishpatra.org \
--cc=cleger@rivosinc.com \
--cc=conor@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).