qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] target/riscv: redirect XVentanaCondOps to use the Zic


From: Alistair Francis
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] target/riscv: redirect XVentanaCondOps to use the Zicond functions
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 21:44:21 +1000

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:37 AM Philipp Tomsich
<philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 02:29, Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 12:36 PM Philipp Tomsich
> > <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Zicond standard extension implements the same instruction
> > > semantics as XVentanaCondOps, although using different mnemonics and
> > > opcodes.
> > >
> > > Point XVentanaCondOps to the (newly implemented) Zicond implementation
> > > to reduce the future maintenance burden.
> > >
> > > Also updating MAINTAINERS as trans_xventanacondops.c.inc will not see
> > > active maintenance from here forward.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - Calls into the gen_czero_{eqz,nez} helpers instead of calling
> > >   trans_czero_{eqz,nez} to bypass the require-check and ensure that
> > >   XVentanaCondOps can be enabled/disabled independently of Zicond.
> > >
> > >  MAINTAINERS                                    |  2 +-
> > >  .../insn_trans/trans_xventanacondops.c.inc     | 18 +++---------------
> > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > > index ca914c42fa..293a9d1c8c 100644
> > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ F: target/riscv/insn_trans/trans_zicond.c.inc
> > >  RISC-V XVentanaCondOps extension
> > >  M: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>
> > >  L: qemu-riscv@nongnu.org
> > > -S: Supported
> > > +S: Odd Fixes
> >
> > Should this extension be deprecated then?
>
> The extension is out in the wild (as the Ventana Veyron V1 core
> implements it), so we shouldn't deprecate it.
> However, this now is the thinnest possible layer of implementation
> (and will pick up any fixes/updates from Zicond).
>
> I felt that downgrading it to "Odd Fixes" was the right way to
> indicate this.  Let me know if you would like to handle it
> differently.

It probably makes sense to just leave it as supported then. It's up to
a vendor to support their extensions, so I feel that marking it as
"Off Fixes" is a little strange.

Alistair

>
> Philipp.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]