On 2023/3/23 06:19, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
riscv_cpu_disable_priv_spec_isa_exts(), at the end of
riscv_cpu_validate_set_extensions(), will disable cpu->cfg.ext_h and
cpu->cfg.ext_v if priv_ver check fails.
This check can be done in riscv_cpu_validate_misa_ext(). The difference
here is that we're not silently disable it: we'll error out. Silently
disabling a MISA extension after all the validation is completed can can
cause inconsistencies that we don't have to deal with. Verify ealier and
fail faster.
Note that we're ignoring RVV priv_ver validation since its minimal priv
is also the minimal value we support. RVH will error out if enabled
under priv_ver under 1_12_0.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarb...@ventanamicro.com>
---
target/riscv/cpu.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c
index 399f63b42f..d2eb2b3ba1 100644
--- a/target/riscv/cpu.c
+++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c
@@ -1055,6 +1055,20 @@ static void riscv_cpu_validate_misa_ext(RISCVCPU *cpu,
Error **errp)
return;
}
+ /*
+ * Check for priv spec version. RVH is 1_12_0, RVV is 1_10_0.
+ * We don't support anything under 1_10_0 so skip checking
+ * priv for RVV.
+ *
+ * We're hardcoding it here to avoid looping into the
+ * 50+ entries of isa_edata_arr[] just to check the RVH
+ * entry.
+ */
+ if (cpu->cfg.ext_h && env->priv_ver < PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0) {
+ error_setg(errp, "H extension requires priv spec 1.12.0");
+ return;
+ }
The other multi-letter extensions are directly disabled for lower priv
version with warning message.
Whether we should do the similar action here?
Regards,
Weiwei Li
+
if (cpu->cfg.ext_v) {
riscv_cpu_validate_v(env, &cpu->cfg, &local_err);
if (local_err != NULL) {
