On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:51:07PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > We'll add a new bare CPU type that won't have any default priv_ver. This > means that the CPU will default to priv_ver = 0, i.e. 1.10.0. > > At the same we'll allow these CPUs to enable extensions at will, but > then, if the extension has a priv_ver newer than 1.10, we'll end up > disabling it. Users will then need to manually set priv_ver to something > other than 1.10 to enable the extensions they want, which is not ideal. > > Change the setter() of extensions to allow user enabled extensions to > bump the priv_ver of the CPU. This will make it convenient for users to > enable extensions for CPUs that doesn't set a default priv_ver. > > This change does not affect any existing CPU: vendor CPUs does not allow > extensions to be enabled, and generic CPUs are already set to priv_ver > LATEST. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarb...@ventanamicro.com> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajo...@ventanamicro.com> > --- > target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c b/target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c > index 7670120673..d279314624 100644 > --- a/target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c > +++ b/target/riscv/tcg/tcg-cpu.c > @@ -114,6 +114,26 @@ static int cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version(uint32_t > ext_offset) > g_assert_not_reached(); > } > > +static void cpu_validate_multi_ext_priv_ver(CPURISCVState *env, > + uint32_t ext_offset)
We should probably name this cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). "validate" implies we're checking something and either returning an error when it's not what we expect or asserting on unexpected input. We do neither here, we just bump priv_ver, when necessary. Thanks, drew
