From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF1D43858D35 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 15:51:23 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org BF1D43858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=vrull.eu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=vrull.eu Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3fbc0981755so5217015e9.1 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:51:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vrull.eu; s=google; t=1688053883; x=1690645883; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qaLskKbccplr3SyVp2xz5l2phw9bUSoqHjz6p5T7Ark=; b=AExot/xR+RJ1Kwmw2Z9yR2E89/f1qiek2zvAr5F/O4o5b32z4kTuDWYqqxcfueKEnj EMmlY6rn09osNEgrzXqhsKc6xv5ACywOA2LFHWaGCKIRPYieYR9m1lXoKBAgqRgJgUyn lNHMrBHq13pz/tnFoIpVfjMR4RQCYLSY9AWUIJO0RT/a73j7uNfnt6IAeR5zswd1KBLB AE1s8ynJQSylPP25OO+jCqi7QjfTOG4SnJQf8cwzam4hbEuhm7LnBsyNATBlxJcI1GO9 gQOi4w70bnif1cYwnWgJesPMpBkxpMGw0ZdxoApfbUng5x9GFziTNlcQ0KH6/6kdpyug BL6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1688053883; x=1690645883; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=qaLskKbccplr3SyVp2xz5l2phw9bUSoqHjz6p5T7Ark=; b=gt1rJSNjE2n1RGf/75UnPnFYZsoTHieies8u7S7JpaxmoWAghgQKOhKhS8vr5f5PMk i2Usp/qbKJUeasP9BP2rgBZuBQSKLuT4iEkT+OSMTurQPAeqLalDlcubgENyVNIt88An PWyXnD3XMo3DyBDKDBFsXRialnhHvcmL33X/2Vmu4of1SyadrCKJ71D85H0/r6BITrrR NeWCqWdBYM/oGQC0AGs/xzdynaJquSi5O7nQQ/qIi7FYJe720IvxM7OqBQB19zdpGuLz bGGcZvPRXe2b5617ze3EirNUGeXoiNFCFK/B4p5PsIvzsLN+NZI9xYxvjBmvZRVP9ObO uMZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwORVHdZn9XI8aVzLt52HgxdtgNlaZNs5OTHtCpffI5EPcKckZ4 vgMenkpMSMwPZ24c1l1luIpXYHqJZD4uV2+YsRXBNA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4An2Mb9w2QxlRFTnJ+BX1iwNnaqoRV8wNZYZjjLnnmhSutXhlAWKPIf7CbxnsQJjj9EZUylwwu6Td/ueQleIo= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cb8f:0:b0:3fa:973e:2995 with SMTP id m15-20020a7bcb8f000000b003fa973e2995mr9319769wmi.12.1688053882577; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:51:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Philipp Tomsich Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:51:11 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5] RISC-V: Add support for the Zfa extension To: Jeff Law Cc: Palmer Dabbelt , christoph.muellner@vrull.eu, binutils@sourceware.org, nelson@rivosinc.com, Andrew Waterman , Jim Wilson , jbeulich@suse.com, Kito Cheng , research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 08:49, Jeff Law 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