Re: [RFC 1/5] target/riscv: Add the privileged spec version 1.12.0

[Alistair Francis]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:57 AM Atish Kumar Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:59 PM Richard Henderson 
> <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/21/22 7:07 AM, Atish Patra wrote:
>> > Add the definition for ratified privileged specification version v1.12
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
>> > ---
>> >   target/riscv/cpu.h | 1 +
>> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.h b/target/riscv/cpu.h
>> > index 4d630867650a..671f65100b1a 100644
>> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu.h
>> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.h
>> > @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ enum {
>> >
>> >   #define PRIV_VERSION_1_10_0 0x00011000
>> >   #define PRIV_VERSION_1_11_0 0x00011100
>> > +#define PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0 0x00011200
>>
>> Is there any good reason for defining things this way, as opposed to a 
>> simple enumeration?
>> A simple enum would eliminate the need for
>>
>
> Agreed. A simple enum would be much nicer. I was just following the previous 
> definition of
> PRIV_VERSION_1_10_0 & PRIV_VERSION_1_11_0.
>
> I am not sure about the reason behind this scheme.
>
> @Alistair Francis Is there any history behind this scheme ?

I don't think so

> or Are you okay if I change it ?

Yep :)

Alistair