[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] target/riscv: Add isa extenstion strings to the device tree
From: |
Atish Patra |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] target/riscv: Add isa extenstion strings to the device tree |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:39:10 -0800 |
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:20 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2022, 10:05:30 CET schrieb Atish Patra:
> > Append the available ISA extensions to the "riscv,isa" string if it
> > is enabled so that kernel can process it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
> > ---
> > target/riscv/cpu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > index b0a40b83e7a8..c70260d0df15 100644
> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > @@ -34,6 +34,9 @@
> >
> > /* RISC-V CPU definitions */
> >
> > +/* This includes the null terminated character '\0' */
> > +#define MAX_ISA_EXT_LEN 256
> > +
> > static const char riscv_exts[26] = "IEMAFDQCLBJTPVNSUHKORWXYZG";
> >
> > const char * const riscv_int_regnames[] = {
> > @@ -881,10 +884,26 @@ static void riscv_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *c, void
> > *data)
> > device_class_set_props(dc, riscv_cpu_properties);
> > }
> >
> > +static void riscv_isa_string_ext(RISCVCPU *cpu, char *isa_str, int
> > max_str_len)
> > +{
> > + int offset = strnlen(isa_str, max_str_len);
> > +
> > + if (cpu->cfg.ext_svpbmt) {
> > + offset += snprintf(isa_str + offset, max_str_len, "_%s",
> > "_svpbmt");
> > + }
> > + if ((offset < max_str_len) && cpu->cfg.ext_svinval) {
>
> shouldn't offset + strlen("svinval") +1 be < max_str_len?
> snprintf will write partial strings but this would throw off a
> qemu client completely I guess.
>
We need that check to put out warnings to the user.
>
> > + offset += snprintf(isa_str + offset, max_str_len, "_%s",
> > "_svinval");
> > + }
> > + if ((offset < max_str_len) && (cpu->cfg.ext_svnapot)) {
> > + offset += snprintf(isa_str + offset, max_str_len, "_%s",
> > "_svnapot");
> > + }
>
> wouldn't it make more sense to do something like:
>
> + struct {
> + const char *value;
> + bool enabled;
> + } extensions[] = {
> + { "svpbmt", cpu->cfg.ext_svpbmt },
> + { "svinval", cpu->cfg.ext_svinval },
> + { "svnapot", cpu->cfg.ext_svnapot },
> + };
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(extensions); i++) {
> + if (!extensions[i].enabled)
> + continue;
> +
> + /* check available space */
> + if (offset + strlen(extensions[i].value) + 1 > max_str_len) {
> + //do warn about exceeded length
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + offset += snprintf(isa_str + offset, max_str_len, "_%s",
> +
> extensions[i].value);
> + }
>
> instead?
>
> Because that list will get longer over time and repeating checks
> and snprintf calls will get harder to keep in sync over time?
>
Yeah. This is much better.
>
> Heiko
>
>
>
>
> > +}
> > +
> > char *riscv_isa_string(RISCVCPU *cpu)
> > {
> > int i;
> > - const size_t maxlen = sizeof("rv128") + sizeof(riscv_exts) + 1;
> > + const size_t maxlen = sizeof("rv128") + sizeof(riscv_exts) +
> > + MAX_ISA_EXT_LEN;
> > char *isa_str = g_new(char, maxlen);
> > char *p = isa_str + snprintf(isa_str, maxlen, "rv%d",
> > TARGET_LONG_BITS);
> > for (i = 0; i < sizeof(riscv_exts); i++) {
> > @@ -893,6 +912,8 @@ char *riscv_isa_string(RISCVCPU *cpu)
> > }
> > }
> > *p = '\0';
> > + riscv_isa_string_ext(cpu, isa_str, maxlen);
> > +
> > return isa_str;
> > }
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Atish