Is Ssccptr a ratified extension? #121

YenHaoChen · 2023-10-03T06:51:44Z

Hello,

The Ssccptr is a mandatory extension of the profile. However, I cannot find the extension on the status website (https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/Specification+Status).

Is Ssccptr an official ratified extension?

Best regards,
YenHaoChen

kasanovic · 2023-10-04T18:37:14Z

It was ratified as part of RVA20/22 profile ratification. The profiles introduced a number of extension names for previously unnamed optional features in the unprivileged and privileged architectures. This specific feature mandates that memory with cacheable and coherence attributes must support page table reads, or more informally, the OS can put page tables in any of the regular memory it can access.

YenHaoChen · 2023-10-05T02:29:50Z

I appreciate the clarification. There is a missing extension name "Ssccptr" on the status website (https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/Specification+Status).

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Message-Id: <20240125195319.329181-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Message-Id: <20240126133101.61344-10-ajones@ventanamicro.com>

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Message-Id: <20240125195319.329181-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> Message-Id: <20240125195319.329181-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> Message-Id: <20240202152154.773253-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> Message-Id: <20240215223955.969568-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> Message-ID: <20240215223955.969568-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> Message-ID: <20240215223955.969568-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>

Further discussions after the introduction of rva22 support in QEMU revealed that what we've been calling 'named features' are actually regular extensions, with their respective riscv,isa DTs. This is clarified in [1]. [2] is a bug tracker asking for the profile spec to be less cryptic about it. As far as QEMU goes we understand extensions as something that the user can enable/disable in the command line. This isn't the case for named features, so we'll have to reach a middle ground. We'll keep our existing nomenclature 'named features' to refer to any extension that the user can't control in the command line. We'll also do the following: - 'svade' and 'zic64b' flags are renamed to 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b'. 'ext_svade' and 'ext_zic64b' now have riscv,isa strings and priv_spec versions; - skip name feature check in cpu_bump_multi_ext_priv_ver(). Now that named features have a riscv,isa and an entry in isa_edata_arr[] we don't need to gate the call to cpu_cfg_ext_get_min_version() anymore. [1] riscv/riscv-profiles#121 [2] riscv/riscv-profiles#142 Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> Message-ID: <20240215223955.969568-3-dbarboza@ventanamicro.com> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com> Message-Id: <20240308111152.2856137-9-alistair.francis@wdc.com>

YenHaoChen closed this as completed Oct 5, 2023

jones-drew mentioned this issue Jan 17, 2024

Suggest clarification of the newly named extensions #142

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Is Ssccptr a ratified extension? #121

Is Ssccptr a ratified extension? #121

YenHaoChen commented Oct 3, 2023

kasanovic commented Oct 4, 2023

YenHaoChen commented Oct 5, 2023

Is Ssccptr a ratified extension? #121

Is Ssccptr a ratified extension? #121

Comments

YenHaoChen commented Oct 3, 2023

kasanovic commented Oct 4, 2023

YenHaoChen commented Oct 5, 2023