Re: [RFC 3/6] target/riscv: rvk: add flag support for Zk/Zkn/Zknd/Zknd/Zkne/Zknh/Zks/Zksed/Zksh/Zkr
在 2021/11/3 上午9:21, Richard Henderson 写道:
On 11/2/21 9:06 PM, liweiwei wrote:
在 2021/11/3 上午1:56, Richard Henderson 写道:
On 11/1/21 11:11 PM, liweiwei wrote:
+ if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) {
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true;
+ }
Section 2.12 lists instead the larger Zkn, Zks, Zkt extensions.
I think it's better to follow that.
OK. I'll replace this with setting ext_zkn, ext_zks, ext_zkt true. By
the way, Zkt only includes partial RVI/M/C instructions. Is it
neccessary to distinguish them?
I don't know if Zkt needs to be called out; it probably depends on
whether it is exposed to the guest via some MISA csr extension.
It seems not exposed to the guest via some MISA csr extension. And it
also doesn't define a set of instructions available in the core. It just
restricts the set of instructions to have 'data-independent execution time'.
r~
Re: [RFC 3/6] target/riscv: rvk: add flag support for Zk/Zkn/Zknd/Zknd/Zkne/Zknh/Zks/Zksed/Zksh/Zkr
On 11/2/21 9:06 PM, liweiwei wrote:
在 2021/11/3 上午1:56, Richard Henderson 写道:
On 11/1/21 11:11 PM, liweiwei wrote:
+ if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) {
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true;
+ }
Section 2.12 lists instead the larger Zkn, Zks, Zkt extensions.
I think it's better to follow that.
OK. I'll replace this with setting ext_zkn, ext_zks, ext_zkt true. By the way, Zkt only
includes partial RVI/M/C instructions. Is it neccessary to distinguish them?
I don't know if Zkt needs to be called out; it probably depends on whether it is exposed
to the guest via some MISA csr extension.
r~
Re: [RFC 3/6] target/riscv: rvk: add flag support for Zk/Zkn/Zknd/Zknd/Zkne/Zknh/Zks/Zksed/Zksh/Zkr
在 2021/11/3 上午1:56, Richard Henderson 写道:
On 11/1/21 11:11 PM, liweiwei wrote:
+ if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) {
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true;
+ cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true;
+ }
Section 2.12 lists instead the larger Zkn, Zks, Zkt extensions.
I think it's better to follow that.
OK. I'll replace this with setting ext_zkn, ext_zks, ext_zkt true. By
the way, Zkt only includes partial RVI/M/C instructions. Is it
neccessary to distinguish them?
r~
Re: [RFC 3/6] target/riscv: rvk: add flag support for Zk/Zkn/Zknd/Zknd/Zkne/Zknh/Zks/Zksed/Zksh/Zkr
On 11/1/21 11:11 PM, liweiwei wrote:
+if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) {
+cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true;
+cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true;
+cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true;
+cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true;
+cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true;
+cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true;
+cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true;
+}
Section 2.12 lists instead the larger Zkn, Zks, Zkt extensions.
I think it's better to follow that.
r~
