Re: [RFC PATCH v5] RISC-V: Add support for the Zfa extension

[Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 08:49, Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/29/23 09:37, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> >>> > So my understanding is that this needs to wait for ratification and is
> >>> > not blocked by the mentioned PR.
> >>> Is there something special about Zfa that makes it desirable to wait for
> >>> ratification as opposed to standard practice of gating things as the
> >>> specs get to a Frozen state?
> >>
> >> Not to my knowledge.
> >
> > Waiting for ratification is probably a bad idea, there's really no way
> > to schedule around it.  That's a big part of the reason we've just
> > waited for frozen.
> Exactly.  ISTM that frozen is the right point to trigger.

Is this an OK to apply the changes to trunk?

Thanks,
Philipp.

> > IIUC we're just waiting on the assembler syntax to be accepted, it's not
> > an ISA problem right now.
> And I think enough of it is settled that we can move forward. If RVI
> changes the set of forms allowed, then we can adjust.
>
>
> >
> > It's not all that hard to just add more flavors of assembler syntax
> > later, so maybe we just merge this and stop bothering to wait for all
> > these other non-ISA specs to resolve?
> I'd be more worried about them removing a supported form as that would
> result in hand-coded assembly might needing to be adjusted.  But I
> wouldn't expect there's much hand-coded Zfa code out there.
>
> Jeff