From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa1-x29.google.com (mail-oa1-x29.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67CA63858D35 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 15:49:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 67CA63858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-oa1-x29.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1b055511b85so672352fac.2 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:49:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1688053759; x=1690645759; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EaohueOoTUjH7fNi0Q0YV5BnvZ4HbzbVbBfq+i++uaM=; b=COinVvBJJgP7TPRPyXpfpL+47Kt9stvqBWTs8l+dXkGX3mygCwS4xc8IBHPvnGKKln yh2w6vUFubkxBNMT8BShFxvQeqca/ySMxwbetThwWwybBd1GctlsltCQSn1WJ27PQgwU ABoBIYUyrWFpe0G2IaHouyx/8TK/TF/dkP1aJApi0wjOcWsYcN/pHIj6lxRZuIVvI2eX 1DAeFG4OVpYkGCtshbA+LmiFFdGF6ztq/WQFCe/zj1BJ8b4IgIUraXb70YibEj8rcYrm /V4q0WAp/M0I3bOBJKHzvUK15CcW2T+j/2u1QxMyrGzE2C/PlUxE+j9xkt+j69ALqoWy hZBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1688053759; x=1690645759; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EaohueOoTUjH7fNi0Q0YV5BnvZ4HbzbVbBfq+i++uaM=; b=aekYYHyWtnDOG3yRxgKFDlsf8ugU+dbRHo0FL2ApE/qFjqIAxHTgHZ2Vr3wfen9ngY 7EFKipqi3nzdtyQPQty6bOpDzLdETK+QuMlsjZxh6YTiexhMDR0JQXP70ab6aZ8nYHw/ XOqpw0UmeMJMWMphf7rBRBBo4Tn3bAdU2a6/mfqOtw9u1kk4ri3CE8jrs6IqehXwj0LK fjJ2WVV/5VW54Vl7D1T8ZmquetsJ3ffL/goefOrmyxS/3aUiX/qkfj0ci/JVjSGrz8gK ucaqrW9lDeZdjs8NyG7vci8eSaVQYWQz77LoIqnRy2cUA84UwiN6w/W+eFdvLpp2FlFB yy8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLZzSr/gBWfhy5dX3I7EFyQIEwl+VXW8syQpyvg1J2crxqRhE7tI wAi86oe96sDhbdTdL9/WUvU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlE2Zh3Hh8uBVGUB37vxIiJGnWATDInwViYc+AyoGw+BoP46L0+n3xMij4QMw9iTmrUZS7G33Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:ac9a:b0:1ad:4d4:34c5 with SMTP id ns26-20020a056870ac9a00b001ad04d434c5mr320613oab.39.1688053758981; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.31.0.109] ([136.36.130.248]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lr8-20020a17090b4b8800b0025352448ba9sm11269756pjb.0.2023.06.29.08.49.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 09:49:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5] RISC-V: Add support for the Zfa extension Content-Language: en-US To: Palmer Dabbelt , christoph.muellner@vrull.eu Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, nelson@rivosinc.com, Andrew Waterman , Jim Wilson , philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu, jbeulich@suse.com, Kito Cheng , research_trasio@irq.a4lg.com References: From: Jeff Law In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham 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 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. > > 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