Re: [PATCH v4 16/16] tests/qtest/bios-tables-test: Add expected ACPI data files for RISC-V

[Alistair Francis]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 12:57 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:53:08PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:02:36PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:03:43 -0400
> > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 02:18:03PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:38:39 +0530
> > > > > Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As per the step 5 in the process documented in bios-tables-test.c,
> > > > > > generate the expected ACPI AML data files for RISC-V using the
> > > > > > rebuild-expected-aml.sh script and update the
> > > > > > bios-tables-test-allowed-diff.h.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These are all new files being added for the first time. Hence, iASL 
> > > > > > diff
> > > > > > output is not added.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > > can it go via risc-v tree or
> > > > > do you plan to merge it via your tree?
> > > >
> > > > given patch 1 is merged, I took the rest.
> > >
> > > Looks like your CI runs are catching this as well but
> > > RHCT here is failing.  I rebased the GI/GP set on top of this
> > > and ignored that failure by skipping riscv64 tests.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > Hi Jonathan, Michael,
> >
> > Looks like a recent RISC-V PR updated the rva22s64 ISA string affecting
> > the RHCT I had in my series. I see that Michael dropped those 3 RISC-V
> > patches from the PR. So, let me update the expected RHCT AML file in a
> > new series. I will also include Igor's feedback to remove fallback path
> > in that series.
> >
> Hi Alistair,
>
> This issue is because, below 3 extensions are present in the ISA string
> for rva22s64 profile cpu after recent RISC-V PR.
>
> zmmul_zaamo_zalrsc

zmmul (multiply) is implied by M (multiply and divide). The other two
are similar.

>
> However, IIUC, they are not mentioned in the RVA22S64 profile spec. Because of
> this change, my AML files are having a difference and failing CI. The
> question is, is this correct behavior? If so, I can update the AML files
> and resubmit the patches. Let me know.

This does feel correct. Is software only needed zmmul for multiplying
then reporting zmmul when we support M feels like the right thing to
do.

I can't find a spec that says either way though. So unless anyone else
knows of one I think this current approach is correct

Alistair