On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:57 AM Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:53:08PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:02:36PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:03:43 -0400 > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 02:18:03PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:38:39 +0530 > > > > > Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As per the step 5 in the process documented in bios-tables-test.c, > > > > > > generate the expected ACPI AML data files for RISC-V using the > > > > > > rebuild-expected-aml.sh script and update the > > > > > > bios-tables-test-allowed-diff.h. > > > > > > > > > > > > These are all new files being added for the first time. Hence, iASL > > > > > > diff > > > > > > output is not added. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > can it go via risc-v tree or > > > > > do you plan to merge it via your tree? > > > > > > > > given patch 1 is merged, I took the rest. > > > > > > Looks like your CI runs are catching this as well but > > > RHCT here is failing. I rebased the GI/GP set on top of this > > > and ignored that failure by skipping riscv64 tests. > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > Hi Jonathan, Michael, > > > > Looks like a recent RISC-V PR updated the rva22s64 ISA string affecting > > the RHCT I had in my series. I see that Michael dropped those 3 RISC-V > > patches from the PR. So, let me update the expected RHCT AML file in a > > new series. I will also include Igor's feedback to remove fallback path > > in that series. > > > Hi Alistair, > > This issue is because, below 3 extensions are present in the ISA string > for rva22s64 profile cpu after recent RISC-V PR. > > zmmul_zaamo_zalrsc
zmmul (multiply) is implied by M (multiply and divide). The other two are similar. > > However, IIUC, they are not mentioned in the RVA22S64 profile spec. Because of > this change, my AML files are having a difference and failing CI. The > question is, is this correct behavior? If so, I can update the AML files > and resubmit the patches. Let me know. This does feel correct. Is software only needed zmmul for multiplying then reporting zmmul when we support M feels like the right thing to do. I can't find a spec that says either way though. So unless anyone else knows of one I think this current approach is correct Alistair
