On 24/04/2025 14:59, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:35:02PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24/04/2025 13:06, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 02:19:51PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>>>> Add FWFT extension calls. This will be ratified in SBI V3.0 hence, it is
>>>> provided as a separate commit that can be left out if needed.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cle...@rivosinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
>>>> index 379981c2bb21..7b062189b184 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
>>>> @@ -299,6 +299,8 @@ static int __sbi_rfence_v02(int fid, const struct
>>>> cpumask *cpu_mask,
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static bool sbi_fwft_supported;
>>>
>>> At some point we may want an SBI extension bitmap, but this is only the
>>> second SBI extension supported boolean that I'm aware of, so I guess we're
>>> still OK for now.
>>
>> That seems reasonable to have a bitmap rather than duplicating
>> *ext*_supported. If that's something that bothers you, I can take care
>> of it and use a bitmap. SSE will also have a sse_supported boolean but
>> in it's own driver file though.
>
> Up to you. We can always do it later.
I will let that for the next extension being added then ;)
Clément
>
> Thanks,
> drew
