Re: [PATCH] riscv: Add RISC-V svpbmt extension

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

On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 11:48, Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
>
> Στις 2021-09-23 12:42, Nick Kossifidis έγραψε:
> > Στις 2021-09-23 12:37, Anup Patel έγραψε:
> >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 2:55 PM Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello Guo,
> >>>
> >>> Στις 2021-09-23 10:27, guoren@kernel.org έγραψε:
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.yaml
> >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.yaml
> >>> index e534f6a7cfa1..1825cd8db0de 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.yaml
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.yaml
> >>> @@ -56,7 +56,9 @@ properties:
> >>>       enum:
> >>>         - riscv,sv32
> >>>         - riscv,sv39
> >>> +      - riscv,sv39,svpbmt
> >>>         - riscv,sv48
> >>> +      - riscv,sv48,svpbmt
> >>>         - riscv,none
> >>>
> >>> Isn't svpbmt orthogonal to the mmu type ? It's a functionality that
> >>> can
> >>> be present on either sv39/48/57 so why not have another "svpbmt"
> >>> property directly on the cpu node ?
> >>
> >> Actually, "mmu-type" would be a good place because it's page based
> >> memory attribute and paging can't exist without mmu translation mode.
> >>
> >> Also, "svpmbt" is indeed a CPU property so has to be feature
> >> individual
> >> CPU node. Hypothetically, a heterogeneous system is possible where
> >> some CPUs have "svpmbt" and some CPUs don't have "svpmbt". For
> >> example, a future FUxxx SoC might have a E-core and few S-cores
> >> where S-cores have Svpmbt whereas E-core does not have Svpmbt
> >> because it's an embedded core.
> >>
> >
> > I should say cpuX node, not the root /cpu node. We can have an svpbmt
> > property in the same way we have an mmu-type property.
> >
>
> I'm also thinking of future mmu-related extensions, e.g. what about
> svnapot ? Should we have mmu-type be riscv,sv39,svnapot and e.g.
> riscv.sv39,svpbmt,svnapot ? It'll become messy.

How if we expand this to a mmu subnode in cpu@x and add a booleans for
adornments like svnapot and svpbmt?

The older mmu-type could then treated to indicate a mmu w/o any adornments
specified.  I am aware that this generates an additional parsing-path
that will be
maintained, but it will allow future properties to be grouped.

This could like like the following:

  cpu@0 {
    ...
    mmu {
       type = "riscv,sv39";
       supports-svpbmt;
    }
    ...
  }

Cheers,
Philipp.