| Message ID | 20211102031128.17296-4-liweiwei@iscas.ac.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | support subsets of scalar crypto extension | expand |
On 11/1/21 11:11 PM, liweiwei wrote: > + if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) { > + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true; > + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true; > + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true; > + cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true; > + cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true; > + cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true; > + cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true; > + } Section 2.12 lists instead the larger Zkn, Zks, Zkt extensions. I think it's better to follow that. r~
在 2021/11/3 上午1:56, Richard Henderson 写道: > On 11/1/21 11:11 PM, liweiwei wrote: >> + if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) { >> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true; >> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true; >> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true; >> + cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true; >> + cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true; >> + cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true; >> + cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true; >> + } > > Section 2.12 lists instead the larger Zkn, Zks, Zkt extensions. > I think it's better to follow that. > OK. I'll replace this with setting ext_zkn, ext_zks, ext_zkt true. By the way, Zkt only includes partial RVI/M/C instructions. Is it neccessary to distinguish them? > > r~
On 11/2/21 9:06 PM, liweiwei wrote: > > 在 2021/11/3 上午1:56, Richard Henderson 写道: >> On 11/1/21 11:11 PM, liweiwei wrote: >>> + if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) { >>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true; >>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true; >>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true; >>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true; >>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true; >>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true; >>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true; >>> + } >> >> Section 2.12 lists instead the larger Zkn, Zks, Zkt extensions. >> I think it's better to follow that. >> > OK. I'll replace this with setting ext_zkn, ext_zks, ext_zkt true. By the way, Zkt only > includes partial RVI/M/C instructions. Is it neccessary to distinguish them? I don't know if Zkt needs to be called out; it probably depends on whether it is exposed to the guest via some MISA csr extension. r~
在 2021/11/3 上午9:21, Richard Henderson 写道: > On 11/2/21 9:06 PM, liweiwei wrote: >> >> 在 2021/11/3 上午1:56, Richard Henderson 写道: >>> On 11/1/21 11:11 PM, liweiwei wrote: >>>> + if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) { >>>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true; >>>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true; >>>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true; >>>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true; >>>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true; >>>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true; >>>> + cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true; >>>> + } >>> >>> Section 2.12 lists instead the larger Zkn, Zks, Zkt extensions. >>> I think it's better to follow that. >>> >> OK. I'll replace this with setting ext_zkn, ext_zks, ext_zkt true. By >> the way, Zkt only includes partial RVI/M/C instructions. Is it >> neccessary to distinguish them? > > I don't know if Zkt needs to be called out; it probably depends on > whether it is exposed to the guest via some MISA csr extension. It seems not exposed to the guest via some MISA csr extension. And it also doesn't define a set of instructions available in the core. It just restricts the set of instructions to have 'data-independent execution time'. > > > r~
diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c index 0f03d3efba..d7e026df36 100644 --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c @@ -491,6 +491,33 @@ static void riscv_cpu_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) cpu->cfg.ext_d = true; } + if (cpu->cfg.ext_zk) { + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zkr = true; + } + + if (cpu->cfg.ext_zkn) { + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zknd = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zkne = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zknh = true; + } + + if (cpu->cfg.ext_zks) { + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkb = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkc = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zbkx = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zksed = true; + cpu->cfg.ext_zksh = true; + } + /* Set the ISA extensions, checks should have happened above */ if (cpu->cfg.ext_i) { ext |= RVI; @@ -642,6 +669,15 @@ static Property riscv_cpu_properties[] = { DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zbkb", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zbkb, false), DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zbkc", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zbkc, false), DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zbkx", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zbkx, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zk", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zk, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zkn", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zkn, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zknd", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zknd, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zkne", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zkne, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zknh", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zknh, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zks", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zks, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zksed", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zksed, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zksh", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zksh, false), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-zkr", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_zkr, false), DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-h", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_h, false), DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-j", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_j, false), DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("x-v", RISCVCPU, cfg.ext_v, false), diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.h b/target/riscv/cpu.h index f9f4437efc..de706a7d18 100644 --- a/target/riscv/cpu.h +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.h @@ -312,6 +312,15 @@ struct RISCVCPU { bool ext_zbkb; bool ext_zbkc; bool ext_zbkx; + bool ext_zk; + bool ext_zkn; + bool ext_zknd; + bool ext_zkne; + bool ext_zknh; + bool ext_zks; + bool ext_zksed; + bool ext_zksh; + bool ext_zkr; bool ext_counters; bool ext_ifencei; bool ext_icsr;