On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:05 AM Alistair Francis <alistai...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:54 PM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 02:15:24 PDT (-0700), frank.ch...@sifive.com wrote:
> > > From: Frank Chang <frank.ch...@sifive.com>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Frank Chang <frank.ch...@sifive.com>
> > > ---
> > > target/riscv/cpu.c | 24 ++++++------------------
> > > target/riscv/cpu.h | 2 --
> > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > > index 228b9bdb5d..2800953e6c 100644
> > > --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> > > @@ -106,11 +106,6 @@ static void set_priv_version(CPURISCVState *env,
> int priv_ver)
> > > env->priv_ver = priv_ver;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void set_vext_version(CPURISCVState *env, int vext_ver)
> > > -{
> > > - env->vext_ver = vext_ver;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > static void set_feature(CPURISCVState *env, int feature)
> > > {
> > > env->features |= (1ULL << feature);
> > > @@ -339,7 +334,6 @@ static void riscv_cpu_realize(DeviceState *dev,
> Error **errp)
> > > CPURISCVState *env = &cpu->env;
> > > RISCVCPUClass *mcc = RISCV_CPU_GET_CLASS(dev);
> > > int priv_version = PRIV_VERSION_1_11_0;
> > > - int vext_version = VEXT_VERSION_0_07_1;
> > > target_ulong target_misa = 0;
> > > Error *local_err = NULL;
> > >
> > > @@ -363,7 +357,6 @@ static void riscv_cpu_realize(DeviceState *dev,
> Error **errp)
> > > }
> > >
> > > set_priv_version(env, priv_version);
> > > - set_vext_version(env, vext_version);
> > >
> > > if (cpu->cfg.mmu) {
> > > set_feature(env, RISCV_FEATURE_MMU);
> > > @@ -455,19 +448,14 @@ static void riscv_cpu_realize(DeviceState *dev,
> Error **errp)
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > if (cpu->cfg.vext_spec) {
> > > - if (!g_strcmp0(cpu->cfg.vext_spec, "v0.7.1")) {
> > > - vext_version = VEXT_VERSION_0_07_1;
> > > - } else {
> > > - error_setg(errp,
> > > - "Unsupported vector spec version '%s'",
> > > - cpu->cfg.vext_spec);
> > > - return;
> > > - }
> > > + error_setg(errp,
> > > + "Unsupported vector spec version '%s'",
> > > + cpu->cfg.vext_spec);
> > > + return;
> > > } else {
> > > - qemu_log("vector verison is not specified, "
> > > - "use the default value v0.7.1\n");
> > > + qemu_log("vector version is not specified\n");
> > > + return;
> > > }
> > > - set_vext_version(env, vext_version);
> > > }
> > >
> > > set_misa(env, RVXLEN | target_misa);
> > > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.h b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > > index eef20ca6e5..6766dcd914 100644
> > > --- a/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > > @@ -79,8 +79,6 @@ enum {
> > > #define PRIV_VERSION_1_10_0 0x00011000
> > > #define PRIV_VERSION_1_11_0 0x00011100
> > >
> > > -#define VEXT_VERSION_0_07_1 0x00000701
> > > -
> > > #define TRANSLATE_PMP_FAIL 2
> > > #define TRANSLATE_FAIL 1
> > > #define TRANSLATE_SUCCESS 0
> >
> > If I'm reading things correctly, 5.0 did not have the V extension. This
> means
> > that we can technically drop 0.7.1 from QEMU, as it's never been
> released.
>
> There is no intention of this making it into 5.1. We are currently in
> hard freeze.
>
> The idea is that QEMU 5.1 will support v0.7.1 and then hopefully 5.2
> will support v0.9.
>
> > That said, I'd still prefer to avoid dropping 0.7.1 so late in the
> release
> > cycle (it's already soft freeze, right?). Given the extended length of
> the V
> > extension development process it seems likely that 0.7.1 is going to end
> up in
> > some silicon, which means it would be quite useful to have it in QEMU.
>
> Agreed!
>
> >
> > I understand it's a lot more work to maintain multiple vector
> extensions, but
> > it was very useful to have multiple privileged extensions supported in
> QEMU
> > while that was all getting sorted out and as the vector drafts has
> massive
> > differences it'll probably be even more useful.
>
> Hopefully a release will be enough for this as managing both will be a
> huge maintenance burden.
>
> Alistair
>
> >
Although RVV v1.0 spec is not ratified yet.
However, the differences between RVV v0.9 by far are minor:
1. SLEN=VLEN layout mandatory.
>> Luckily we haven't defined *slen* in our RVV implementation by far, so
we can just ignore the change.
2. Support ELEN > VLEN for LMUL > 1
3. Defined vector FP exception behavior.
4. Added reciprocal and reciprocal square-root estimate instructions.
>> *vfrece7.v* and *vfrsqrte7.v* instructions are added, but the
behaviors are still undefined.
5. Defined hint behavior on whole register moves and load/stores to enable
microarchitectures with internal data rearrangement.
>> Serveral *vl**<NF>re<EEW>.v* and *vs<NF>r.v* instructions are added.
6. Added *vrgatherei16* instruction.
7. Rearranged bits in *vtype* to make *vlmul* bits into a contiguous field.
As QEMU v5.1 is already hard-freezed and should be released between
2020/08/11 and 2020/08/18.
So perhaps we still have some time for waiting RVV v1.0 spec. to be
ratified before QEMU v5.2 is soft-freezed?
We have already made these RVV v1.0 changes in our local branch.
(*vfrece7.v* and *vfrsqrte7.v* instructions are not included as they're not
defined yet.)
So, if it's okay, we can skip RVV v0.9 and bump to RVV v1.0 directly in our
next version of patchset.
Which I think may relieve the burden for the community to maintain
multi-version of vector drafts.
Any thoughts?
Frank Chang
