On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:25 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 08:15:08PM +0800, Yong-Xuan Wang wrote:Actually if both Svade and Svadu are not present in DT then
Add entries for the Svade and Svadu extensions to the riscv,isa-extensionsI think this needs to be expanded on, as to why nothing means svade.
property.
Signed-off-by: Yong-Xuan Wang <yongxuan.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml | 30 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
index 468c646247aa..1e30988826b9 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
@@ -153,6 +153,36 @@ properties:
ratified at commit 3f9ed34 ("Add ability to manually trigger
workflow. (#2)") of riscv-time-compare.
+ - const: svade
+ description: |
+ The standard Svade supervisor-level extension for raising page-fault
+ exceptions when PTE A/D bits need be set as ratified in the 20240213
+ version of the privileged ISA specification.
+
+ Both Svade and Svadu extensions control the hardware behavior when
+ the PTE A/D bits need to be set. The default behavior for the four
+ possible combinations of these extensions in the device tree are:
+ 1. Neither svade nor svadu in DT: default to svade.
it is left to the platform and OpenSBI does nothing.
Yes, the wording should be more of requirement style using+ 2. Only svade in DT: use svade.That's a statement of the obvious, right?
+ 3. Only svadu in DT: use svadu.This is not relevant for Svade.
+ 4. Both svade and svadu in DT: default to svade (Linux can switch to"The privilege level to which this devicetree has been provided can switch to
+ svadu once the SBI FWFT extension is available).
Svadu if the SBI FWFT extension is available".
+ - const: svadu@Anup/Drew/Alex, are we missing some wording in here about it only being
+ description: |
+ The standard Svadu supervisor-level extension for hardware updating
+ of PTE A/D bits as ratified at commit c1abccf ("Merge pull request
+ #25 from ved-rivos/ratified") of riscv-svadu.
+
+ Both Svade and Svadu extensions control the hardware behavior when
+ the PTE A/D bits need to be set. The default behavior for the four
+ possible combinations of these extensions in the device tree are:
valid to have Svadu in isolation if the provider of the devicetree has
actually turned on Svadu? The binding says "the default behaviour", but
it is not the "default" behaviour, the behaviour is a must AFAICT. If
you set Svadu in isolation, you /must/ have turned it on. If you set
Svadu and Svade, you must have Svadu turned off?
must or may.
How about this ?
1) Both Svade and Svadu not present in DT => Supervisor may
assume Svade to be present and enabled or it can discover
based on mvendorid, marchid, and mimpid.
2) Only Svade present in DT => Supervisor must assume Svade
to be always enabled. (Obvious)
3) Only Svadu present in DT => Supervisor must assume Svadu
to be always enabled. (Obvious)
4) Both Svade and Svadu present in DT => Supervisor must
assume Svadu turned-off at boot time. To use Svadu, supervisor
must explicitly enable it using the SBI FWFT extension.
IMO, the #2 and #3 are definitely obvious but still worth mentioning.
Regards,+ 1. Neither svade nor svadu in DT: default to svade.These two are not relevant to Svadu, I'd leave them out.
+ 2. Only svade in DT: use svade.
+ 3. Only svadu in DT: use svadu.Again, statement of the obvious?
+ 4. Both svade and svadu in DT: default to svade (Linux can switch toSame here as in the Svade entry.
+ svadu once the SBI FWFT extension is available).
Thanks,
Conor.
Anup
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv