Re: [v2 2/5] target/riscv: Add cycle & instret privilege mode filtering properties

[Daniel Henrique Barboza]

On 12/28/23 21:49, Atish Patra wrote:
> From: Kaiwen Xue <kaiwenx@rivosinc.com>
>
> This adds the properties for ISA extension smcntrpmf. Patches
> implementing it will follow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kaiwen Xue <kaiwenx@rivosinc.com>
> ---
>   target/riscv/cpu.c     | 3 ++-
>   target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h | 1 +
>   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> index 83c7c0cf07be..da3f05cd5373 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c
> +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c
> @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ const RISCVIsaExtData isa_edata_arr[] = {
>       ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smstateen, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smstateen),
>       ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(ssaia, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_ssaia),
>       ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(sscofpmf, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_sscofpmf),
> +    ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smcntrpmf, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smcntrpmf),
>       ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(sstc, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_sstc),
>       ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(svadu, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_svadu),
>       ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(svinval, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_svinval),
> @@ -1296,6 +1297,7 @@ const char *riscv_get_misa_ext_description(uint32_t bit)
>   const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_extensions[] = {
>       /* Defaults for standard extensions */
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("sscofpmf", ext_sscofpmf, false),
> +    DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("smcntrpmf", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_smcntrpmf, false),

This will end up breaking the build since this macro is adding a Property object
inside a RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig array. Patch 3 is then fixing it by removing 
this
line, so in the end the build works fine. But having a patch that doesn't build
can make future bisects unpleasant.

I don't see a problem adding right now the actual flag:

+    MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smcntrpmf", ext_smcntrpmf, false),

The flag will do nothing, sure, but the commit msg already mentions "Patches
implementing it will follow", so it's fine to me.



Thanks,

Daniel


>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("zifencei", ext_zifencei, true),
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("zicsr", ext_zicsr, true),
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("zihintntl", ext_zihintntl, true),
> @@ -1308,7 +1310,6 @@ const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_extensions[] = {
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("zve64f", ext_zve64f, false),
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("zve64d", ext_zve64d, false),
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("sstc", ext_sstc, true),
> -
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smepmp", ext_smepmp, false),
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smstateen", ext_smstateen, false),
>       MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("svadu", ext_svadu, true),
> diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h b/target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h
> index f4605fb190b9..00c34fdd3209 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h
> +++ b/target/riscv/cpu_cfg.h
> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ struct RISCVCPUConfig {
>       bool ext_zihpm;
>       bool ext_smstateen;
>       bool ext_sstc;
> +    bool ext_smcntrpmf;
>       bool ext_svadu;
>       bool ext_svinval;
>       bool ext_svnapot;