On 24/04/2025 14:59, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:35:02PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote: >> >> >> On 24/04/2025 13:06, Andrew Jones wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 02:19:51PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote: >>>> Add FWFT extension calls. This will be ratified in SBI V3.0 hence, it is >>>> provided as a separate commit that can be left out if needed. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c >>>> index 379981c2bb21..7b062189b184 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c >>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c >>>> @@ -299,6 +299,8 @@ static int __sbi_rfence_v02(int fid, const struct cpumask *cpu_mask, >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static bool sbi_fwft_supported; >>> >>> At some point we may want an SBI extension bitmap, but this is only the >>> second SBI extension supported boolean that I'm aware of, so I guess we're >>> still OK for now. >> >> That seems reasonable to have a bitmap rather than duplicating >> *ext*_supported. If that's something that bothers you, I can take care >> of it and use a bitmap. SSE will also have a sse_supported boolean but >> in it's own driver file though. > > Up to you. We can always do it later. I will let that for the next extension being added then ;) Clément > > Thanks, > drew
