On 12/9/24 4:54 PM, Hendrik Brueckner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 04:45:25PM +0100, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 12/9/24 4:24 PM, Hendrik Brueckner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 12/6/24 1:27 PM, Hendrik Brueckner wrote:
MSA12 changes the KIMD/KLMD instruction format for SHA3/SHAKE.
Signed-off-by: Hendrik Brueckner <brueck...@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@linux.ibm.com>
MSA6 is a prereq, no?
MSA6 is the prereq. However, there is no explicit feature definition
for the MSA_EXT_6 due to no STFLE and subfunctions only. The only
way would be to pick one or more / all MSA6 subfunctions for which
there is a feature defined...
Which you did for MSA11, no?
The other way around.
Here: MSA_EXT_12 would check/have a dependency on all(?) subfuncs
introduced with MSA_EXT_6.
I'm not saying that subfunc handling is great :)
Let me have a look which functions come with MSA_6 related to KIMD/KLMD.
Would it be OK to have those checks as a separate patch so that cpu
model in general is not blocked?
Of course, I mostly want this question being answered in general.
