Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] riscv: Add support to no-FPU systems

From: Alan Kao
Date: Thu Oct 04 2018 - 10:24:43 EST


On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 02:45:04AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 18:07:50 PDT (-0700), alankao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >This patchset adds an option, CONFIG_FPU, to enable/disable floating-
> >point procedures.
> >
> >Kernel's new behavior will be as follows:
> >
> >* with CONFIG_FPU=y
> > All FPU codes are reserved. If no FPU is found during booting, a
> > global flag will be set, and those functions will be bypassed with
> > condition check to that flag.
> >
> >* with CONFIG_FPU=n
> > No floating-point instructions in kernel and all related settings
> > are excluded.
> >
> >Changes in v7:
> > - Remove "fd" attribute from KBUILD_CFLAGS.
> >
> >Changes in v6 (PATCH 0005 only):
> > - Make the flag checking neater.
> >
> >Changes in v5:
> > - Invert the polarity of checking flag from no_fpu to has_fpu.
> >
> >Changes in v4:
> > - Append a new patch to detect existence of FPU and followups.
> > - Add SPDX header to newly created fpu.S.
> > - Fix a build error, sorry for that.
> > - Fix wording, style, etc.
> >
> >Changes in v3:
> > - Refactor the whole patch into independent ones.
> >
> >Changes in v2:
> > - Various code cleanups and style fixes.
> >
> >
> >Alan Kao (5):
> > Extract FPU context operations from entry.S
> > Refactor FPU code in signal setup/return procedures
> > Cleanup ISA string setting
> > Allow to disable FPU support
> > Auto-detect whether a FPU exists
> >
> > arch/riscv/Kconfig | 9 +++
> > arch/riscv/Makefile | 19 +++---
> > arch/riscv/include/asm/switch_to.h | 12 +++-
> > arch/riscv/kernel/Makefile | 1 +
> > arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 8 +++
> > arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S | 87 -----------------------
> > arch/riscv/kernel/fpu.S | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/riscv/kernel/process.c | 6 +-
> > arch/riscv/kernel/signal.c | 75 ++++++++++++--------
> > 9 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 127 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kernel/fpu.S
>
> Thanks! I'll add this to our for-next branch.

Any updates?