Re: [PATCH v6 02/12] target/riscv/tcg: add 'zic64b' support

[Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 05:54:17AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> zic64b is defined in the RVA22U64 profile [1] as a named feature for
> "Cache blocks must be 64 bytes in size, naturally aligned in the address
> space". It's a fantasy name for 64 bytes cache blocks. The RVA22U64
> profile mandates this feature, meaning that applications using this
> profile expects 64 bytes cache blocks.
> 
> To make the upcoming RVA22U64 implementation complete, we'll zic64b as
> a 'named feature', not a regular extension. This means that:
> 
> - it won't be exposed to users;
> - it won't be written in riscv,isa.
> 
> This will be extended to other named extensions in the future, so we're
> creating some common boilerplate for them as well.
> 
> zic64b is default to 'true' since we're already using 64 bytes blocks.
> If any cache block size (cbo{m,p,z}_blocksize) is changed to something
> different than 64, zic64b is set to 'false'.
> 
> Our profile implementation will then be able to check the current state
> of zic64b and take the appropriate action (e.g. throw a warning).
> 
> [1] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/releases/download/v1.0/profiles.pdf
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>
> ---
>  target/riscv/cpu.c         | 15 ++++++++++++---
>  target/riscv/cpu.h         |  3 +++
>  target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h     |  1 +
>  target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> index 6c0050988f..316d468a19 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c
> +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> @@ -1396,6 +1396,12 @@ const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_experimental_exts[] = {
>      DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
>  };
>  
> +const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_named_features[] = {
> +    MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("zic64b", zic64b, true),
> +
> +    DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
> +};
> +
>  /* Deprecated entries marked for future removal */
>  const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_deprecated_exts[] = {
>      MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("Zifencei", ext_zifencei, true),
> @@ -1425,9 +1431,12 @@ Property riscv_cpu_options[] = {
>      DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("vlen", RISCVCPU, cfg.vlen, 128),
>      DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("elen", RISCVCPU, cfg.elen, 64),
>  
> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cbom_blocksize", RISCVCPU, cfg.cbom_blocksize, 64),
> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cbop_blocksize", RISCVCPU, cfg.cbop_blocksize, 64),
> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cboz_blocksize", RISCVCPU, cfg.cboz_blocksize, 64),
> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cbom_blocksize", RISCVCPU,
> +                       cfg.cbom_blocksize, CB_DEF_VALUE),
> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cbop_blocksize", RISCVCPU,
> +                       cfg.cbop_blocksize, CB_DEF_VALUE),
> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("cboz_blocksize", RISCVCPU,
> +                       cfg.cboz_blocksize, CB_DEF_VALUE),

I wouldn't introduce the CB_DEF_VALUE define. I state why below.

>  
>      DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
>  };
> diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.h b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> index 8efc4d83ec..ee9abe61d6 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/cpu.h
> +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> @@ -64,6 +64,8 @@ extern const uint32_t misa_bits[];
>  const char *riscv_get_misa_ext_name(uint32_t bit);
>  const char *riscv_get_misa_ext_description(uint32_t bit);
>  
> +#define CB_DEF_VALUE 64
> +
>  #define CPU_CFG_OFFSET(_prop) offsetof(struct RISCVCPUConfig, _prop)
>  
>  /* Privileged specification version */
> @@ -745,6 +747,7 @@ typedef struct RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig {
>  extern const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_extensions[];
>  extern const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_vendor_exts[];
>  extern const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_experimental_exts[];
> +extern const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_named_features[];
>  extern const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_deprecated_exts[];
>  extern Property riscv_cpu_options[];
>  
> diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h b/target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h
> index 2203b4c45b..f61a8434c4 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h
> +++ b/target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h
> @@ -108,6 +108,7 @@ struct RISCVCPUConfig {
>      bool ext_smepmp;
>      bool rvv_ta_all_1s;
>      bool rvv_ma_all_1s;
> +    bool zic64b;
>  
>      uint32_t mvendorid;
>      uint64_t marchid;
> diff --git a/target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c b/target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c
> index 093bda2e75..65d59bc984 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c
> +++ b/target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,18 @@ static void riscv_cpu_disable_priv_spec_isa_exts(RISCVCPU *cpu)
>      }
>  }
>  
> +static void riscv_cpu_validate_zic64b(RISCVCPU *cpu)
> +{
> +    cpu->cfg.zic64b = cpu->cfg.cbom_blocksize == CB_DEF_VALUE &&
> +                      cpu->cfg.cbop_blocksize == CB_DEF_VALUE &&
> +                      cpu->cfg.cboz_blocksize == CB_DEF_VALUE;

The zic64b name has an explicit 64 in it, so CB_DEF_VALUE must be 64,
which implies it should also be named something with an explicit 64
in it. However, there's really no point in doing

 #define NUM_64 64

so I'd just drop the define altogether.

> +}
> +
> +static void riscv_cpu_validate_named_features(RISCVCPU *cpu)
> +{
> +    riscv_cpu_validate_zic64b(cpu);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Check consistency between chosen extensions while setting
>   * cpu->cfg accordingly.
> @@ -586,6 +598,8 @@ void riscv_tcg_cpu_finalize_features(RISCVCPU *cpu, Error **errp)
>          return;
>      }
>  
> +    riscv_cpu_validate_named_features(cpu);
> +
>      if (cpu->cfg.ext_smepmp && !cpu->cfg.pmp) {
>          /*
>           * Enhanced PMP should only be available
> -- 
> 2.41.0
>

Thanks,
drew