Re: [PATCH RFC 02/11] dt-bindings: riscv: Add Sdtrig optional CSRs existence on DT

Conor Dooley
2024-04-09T15:49:09Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2087 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 05:59:41PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:31:10AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 05:26:18PM +0800, Max Hsu wrote:
> > > The mcontext/hcontext/scontext CSRs are optional in the Sdtrig extension,
> > > to prevent RW operations to the missing CSRs, which will cause
> > > illegal instructions.
> > >
> > > As a solution, we have proposed the dt format for these CSRs.
> >
> > As I mentioned in your other patch, I amn't sure what the actual value
> > is in being told about "sdtrig" itself if so many of the CSRs are
> > optional. I think we should define pseudo extensions that represent
> > usable subsets that are allowed by riscv,isa-extensions, such as
> > those you describe here: sdtrig + mcontext, sdtrig + scontext and
> > sdtrig + hcontext. Probably also for strig + mscontext. What
> > additional value does having a debug child node give us that makes
> > it worth having over something like the above?
>
> Yeah, Sdtrig, which doesn't tell you what you get, isn't nice at all.
> I wonder if we can start with requiring Sdtrig to be accompanied by
> Ssstrict in order to enable the context CSRs, i.e.
>
> Sdtrig - support without optional CSRs
> Sdtrig+Ssstrict - probe for optional CSRs, support what's found
>
> If there are platforms with Sdtrig and optional CSRs, but not Ssstrict,
> then maybe the optional CSRs can be detected in some vendor-specific way,
> where the decision as to whether or not that vendor-specific way is
> acceptable is handled case-by-case.

I think it's pretty reasonable to make sstrict a requirement for the
kernel's use of sdtrig. If we have some non-sstrict systems that do
implement these particular CSRs, then I guess we can add some psuedo
instructions then (and nothing would stop the sstrict systems also
specifying directly). If they're using some non-standard CSRs then
case-by-case I guess.

I'm just specifically not keen on adding extra dt properties that do
things we can already do with the ones we have!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]