Hi Daniel,
Indeed this series doesn't include the *Supm* extension, but it's mandatory
for RVA23U64.
As for the *Supm* itself, if I get it right, I don't think it should be
always-on, unless the proper profile is selected.
I think we might need to add extra flags like *ext_supm* and *ext_sspm*.
Then, to avoid adding extra checks to the existing code, I think we could
enable *Ssnpm* or *Smnpm* or both somewhere during the initialization if
*Supm* is set. And do the same for *Sspm*.
>From what I see right now in the code, there's no mention of RVA23, so
maybe we could just add some fields for the missing extensions and support
them later, when RVA23 support is implemented.
Personally, I'd like to do this in a separate patch after these ones are
merged.
What do you think?
Thanks
чт, 12 дек. 2024 г. в 12:48, Daniel Henrique Barboza <
dbarb...@ventanamicro.com>:
>
>
> On 12/5/24 8:23 AM, baturo.ale...@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Alexey Baturo <baturo.ale...@gmail.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Baturo <baturo.ale...@gmail.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
> > ---
> > target/riscv/cpu.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > index 4e80dcd2e6..fd3ea9ce76 100644
> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > @@ -186,11 +186,14 @@ const RISCVIsaExtData isa_edata_arr[] = {
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smaia, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smaia),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smcntrpmf, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smcntrpmf),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smepmp, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smepmp),
> > + ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smmpm, PRIV_VERSION_1_13_0, ext_smmpm),
> > + ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smnpm, PRIV_VERSION_1_13_0, ext_smnpm),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smstateen, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smstateen),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(ssaia, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_ssaia),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(ssccptr, PRIV_VERSION_1_11_0, has_priv_1_11),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(sscofpmf, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_sscofpmf),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(sscounterenw, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0,
> has_priv_1_12),
> > + ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(ssnpm, PRIV_VERSION_1_13_0, ext_ssnpm),
>
> I just realized that we're not adding "ext_supm":
>
> "Supm Pointer masking, with the execution environment providing a means
> to select PMLEN=0 and PMLEN=7 at minimum."
>
> IIUC this is always enabled in the code so this would be a flag that would
> be always enabled, i.e. it would be a ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY that defaults to
> "has_priv_1_13". "sscounterenw" is an example of this kind of extension.
>
> If that's really the case I believe you can add "supm" in this patch or
> maybe
> a new patch right after. We need to advertise support for "supm" for RVA23
> anyway.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Daniel
>
>
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(sstc, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_sstc),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(sstvala, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, has_priv_1_12),
> > ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(sstvecd, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, has_priv_1_12),
> > @@ -1490,9 +1493,12 @@ const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig
> riscv_cpu_extensions[] = {
> > MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("zvfh", ext_zvfh, false),
> > MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("zvfhmin", ext_zvfhmin, false),
> > MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("sstc", ext_sstc, true),
> > + MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("ssnpm", ext_ssnpm, false),
> >
> > MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smaia", ext_smaia, false),
> > MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smepmp", ext_smepmp, false),
> > + MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smmpm", ext_smmpm, false),
> > + MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smnpm", ext_smnpm, false),
> > MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smstateen", ext_smstateen, false),
> > MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("ssaia", ext_ssaia, false),
> > MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("svade", ext_svade, false),
>
>
