Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] RISC-V: add f & d extension validation checks

["Clément Léger" <cleger@rivosinc.com>]

On 05/02/2025 17:05, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> Using Clement's new validation callbacks, support checking that
> dependencies have been satisfied for the floating point extensions.
> 
> The check for "d" might be slightly confusingly shorter than that of "f",
> despite "d" depending on "f". This is because the requirement that a
> hart supporting double precision must also support single precision,
> should be validated by dt-bindings etc, not the kernel but lack of
> support for single precision only is a limitation of the kernel.
> 
> Since vector will now be disabled proactively, there's no need to clear
> the bit in elf_hwcap in riscv_fill_hwcap() any longer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 1c148ecea612..ad4fbaa4ff0d 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -109,6 +109,29 @@ static int riscv_ext_zicboz_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int riscv_ext_f_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
> +				const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
> +{
> +	if (!__riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_d)) {
> +		pr_warn_once("This kernel does not support systems with F but not D\n");
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

While I tested to remove the RISCV_ISA_EXT_d from the input isa bitmap
and it worked, I didn't realized that it was due to the probe order of
single letter extensions. D is probed before F so that works as
expected. But returning -EPROBEDEFER would not allow to display the
warn_once or wrongly display it if D was not yet probed. So I'm inclined
to keep it as is and rely on probe order (a bit fragile but for single
letter extensions, that seems acceptable).

> +
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FPU))
> +		return -EINVAL;

I would have actually move that chunk before the
__riscv_isa_extension_available() check so that the whole function body
is elided if FPU is disabled.

Clément

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

> +
> +static int riscv_ext_d_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
> +				const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
> +{
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FPU))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int riscv_ext_vector_x_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
>  				       const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
>  {
> @@ -368,8 +391,8 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(i, RISCV_ISA_EXT_i),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(m, RISCV_ISA_EXT_m),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(a, RISCV_ISA_EXT_a),
> -	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(f, RISCV_ISA_EXT_f),
> -	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(d, RISCV_ISA_EXT_d),
> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA_VALIDATE(f, RISCV_ISA_EXT_f, riscv_ext_f_validate),
> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA_VALIDATE(d, RISCV_ISA_EXT_d, riscv_ext_d_validate),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(q, RISCV_ISA_EXT_q),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(c, RISCV_ISA_EXT_c, riscv_c_exts),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET_VALIDATE(v, RISCV_ISA_EXT_v, riscv_v_exts, riscv_ext_vector_float_validate),


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv