Hello Alan, On Sat, Jun 04, 2022 at 08:52:40AM -0400, Alan Beadle wrote: > It looks like this will always be a complex issue on RISC-V since > there is such a variety of manufacturers. However I think the > following would be the best approach. > > First, if there is a uarch field, use that since it will describe the > design of the cores present, such as Sifive's U74-MC which can be > licensed to other manufacturers, in a similar way to ARM core IP. > > If there isn't a uarch field, try to use the "model name" field if it > is present, since on the C910 this seems to replace the uarch field > (C910 is a core). > > Finally, if neither of those fields exist, the isa field might be ok > but I would add "unknown core" to the output. The letters at the end > of the isa field indicate which instruction set extensions are > present. (i for basic integer support, a for atomics, v for vector, > etc) So it is useful info, but it is vendor-generic for the most part.
Ok, implented this.
Thanks!
I'll release the new version in the next days and then feedback is
highly welcome (as I cannot try it out myself).
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
