On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 09:53 +0800, Alan Kao wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:10:16AM -0700, h...@infradead.org wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 08:22:37AM +0000, Atish Patra wrote: > > > riscv_of_processor_hartid() or seems to be a better candidate. We > > > already check if "rv" is present in isa string or not. I will > > > extend > > > that to check for rv64i or rv32i. Is that okay ? > > > > I'd rather lift the checks out of that into a function that is > > called > > exactly once per hart on boot (and future cpu hotplug). > @Christoph Do you mean to lift the checks for "rv" as well from riscv_of_processor_hartid as well or leave that as it is?
> Sorry that I am a bit out of date on this. Is there any related > discussion about such checks? We are trying to remove all the checks in /proc/cpuinfo and just print isa as it is. Here is the previous discussion. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/2019- September/006702.html > Just want to make sure if the check > stops here and will not go any further for extensions, Xs and Zs. > At least not here. I don't think we need to check for optional extensions anywhere except in the extension relevant code. > > _______________________________________________ > > linux-riscv mailing list > > linux-ri...@lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv -- Regards, Atish
