From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

Yo,

Kinda RFC as I want to see what people think of this.

This series is partly leveraging Clement's work adding a validate
callback in the extension detection code so that things like checking
for whether a vector crypto extension is usable can be done like:
	has_extension(<vector crypto>)
rather than
	has_vector() && has_extension(<vector crypto>)
which Eric pointed out was a poor design some months ago.

The rest of this is adding some requirements to the bindings that
prevent combinations of extensions disallowed by the ISA. I might have
gotten them wrong, but I have cited the bits in the documentation I used
for reference - so double checking shouldn't be /too/ difficult.

Cheers,
Conor.

CC: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>
CC: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
CC: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
CC: "Clément Léger" <cleger@rivosinc.com>
CC: Andy Chiu <andybnac@gmail.com>
CC: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
CC: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Conor Dooley (5):
  RISC-V: add vector crypto extension validation checks
  RISC-V: add f & d extension validation checks
  dt-bindings: riscv: d requires f
  dt-bindings: riscv: add vector sub-extension dependencies
  dt-bindings: riscv: document vector crypto requirements

 .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml |  84 ++++++++++
 arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h           |   3 +
 arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c                | 147 ++++++++++++------
 3 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)

-- 
2.45.2