On 9/17/25 7:41 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 9/9/25 10:25 AM, LIU Zhiwei wrote:Co-authored-by: Huang Tao <eric.hu...@linux.alibaba.com> Co-authored-by: TANG Tiancheng <lyn...@linux.alibaba.com> Signed-off-by: LIU Zhiwei <zhiwei_...@linux.alibaba.com> --- target/riscv/cpu.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c index d055ddf462..eea0942cf5 100644 --- a/target/riscv/cpu.c +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c @@ -204,7 +204,9 @@ const RISCVIsaExtData isa_edata_arr[] = { ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smdbltrp, PRIV_VERSION_1_13_0, ext_smdbltrp), ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smepmp, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smepmp), ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smrnmi, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smrnmi), + ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smsdid, PRIV_VERSION_1_13_0, ext_smsdid), ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smmpm, PRIV_VERSION_1_13_0, ext_smmpm), + ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smmpt, PRIV_VERSION_1_13_0, ext_smmpt),smmpt should be before smsdid.
OK. I miss it. I will also make it a experiment extension. Thanks, Zhiwei
The ordering of Z extensions has that weird priority ordering, but S extensions should be ordered alphabetically.Yes, there are some extensions that are already out of order (smmpm, smnpm ...). We'll have to patch them back to order in a separated patch, but for now let's not add to theproblem hehe Thanks, DanielISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smnpm, PRIV_VERSION_1_13_0, ext_smnpm), ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(smstateen, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_smstateen), ISA_EXT_DATA_ENTRY(ssaia, PRIV_VERSION_1_12_0, ext_ssaia),@@ -1279,6 +1281,8 @@ const RISCVCPUMultiExtConfig riscv_cpu_extensions[] = {MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smmpm", ext_smmpm, false), MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smnpm", ext_smnpm, false), MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smstateen", ext_smstateen, false), + MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smsdid", ext_smsdid, false), + MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("smmpt", ext_smmpt, false), MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("ssaia", ext_ssaia, false), MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("ssdbltrp", ext_ssdbltrp, false), MULTI_EXT_CFG_BOOL("svade", ext_svade, false),
