Re: [PATCH 7/8] lib: sbi_hart: add Ssstateen extension

From: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@ventanamicro.com>
To: "Anup Patel" <anup@brainfault.org>
Cc: <opensbi@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] lib: sbi_hart: add Ssstateen extension
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:47:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <D9IBHEG15AYR.122VJJYNT9QGQ@ventanamicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAhSdy0_3DrkKWTcA57KDmCgEWV+1Be2hkh8LxrnyO_RXSjzog@mail.gmail.com>

2025-04-28T18:08:12+05:30, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 8:13 PM Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>>
>> We already detect Smstateen, but Ssstateen exists as well and it doesn't
>> have the M-state CSRs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@ventanamicro.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/include/sbi/sbi_hart.h b/include/sbi/sbi_hart.h
>> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ enum sbi_hart_extensions {
>>         SBI_HART_EXT_SMAIA = 0,
>>         /** HART has Smepmp */
>>         SBI_HART_EXT_SMEPMP,
>> -       /** HART has Smstateen CSR **/
>> +       /** HART has mstateen*, sstateen*, and hstateen* CSRs **/
>
> Let's not define what Smstateen means here.
>
> Smstateen implies only mstateen CSRs whereas
> Sstateeen implies [h|s]stateen CSRs.

The spec actually says that Smstateen is all of the CSRs and Sstateeen
misses mstateen*, but yeah, it's not that important...

Can I remove the comments instead?

SBI_HART_EXT_SMSTATEEN is obviously Smstateen, so I don't see the point
of the comment.

-- 
opensbi mailing list
opensbi@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/opensbi