Since the value in KEY_CPUPERF_0 is not bitmask, remove the wrong code
in hwprobe.h.

Signed-off-by: Yangyu Chen <cyy@cyyself.name>
---
 arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
index 630507dff5ea..f24cad22bbe1 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
@@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static inline bool hwprobe_key_is_bitmask(__s64 key)
 	switch (key) {
 	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
 	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
-	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0:
 		return true;
 	}
 
-- 
2.45.1

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:36 PM Yangyu Chen <cyy@cyyself.name> wrote:
>
> Since the value in KEY_CPUPERF_0 is not bitmask, remove the wrong code
> in hwprobe.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yangyu Chen <cyy@cyyself.name>

I'd expect a Fixes tag, and ideally some discussion on the reasoning
and ramifications of this change.

I posted the other possible fix, declaring a new key, at [1], mostly
so we could see the two options and discuss. I'm okay with either
patch.
-Evan

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240529182649.2635123-1-evan@rivosinc.com/T/#u

> ---
>  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> index 630507dff5ea..f24cad22bbe1 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
> @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static inline bool hwprobe_key_is_bitmask(__s64 key)
>         switch (key) {
>         case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
>         case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
> -       case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0:
>                 return true;
>         }
>
> --
> 2.45.1
>

On Wed, 29 May 2024 11:33:42 PDT (-0700), Evan Green wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:36 PM Yangyu Chen <cyy@cyyself.name> wrote:
>>
>> Since the value in KEY_CPUPERF_0 is not bitmask, remove the wrong code
>> in hwprobe.h.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yangyu Chen <cyy@cyyself.name>
>
> I'd expect a Fixes tag, and ideally some discussion on the reasoning
> and ramifications of this change.
>
> I posted the other possible fix, declaring a new key, at [1], mostly
> so we could see the two options and discuss. I'm okay with either
> patch.

Just to close the loop here as the discussions are on other threads: 
after a bunch of discussions we're going with the new key version.  
Maybe it's a bit pedantic, but since hwprobe is such a fundamental 
compatibility interface we're just going to be super careful.

> -Evan
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240529182649.2635123-1-evan@rivosinc.com/T/#u
>
>> ---
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h | 1 -
>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
>> index 630507dff5ea..f24cad22bbe1 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwprobe.h
>> @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static inline bool hwprobe_key_is_bitmask(__s64 key)
>>         switch (key) {
>>         case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR:
>>         case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
>> -       case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0:
>>                 return true;
>>         }
>>
>> --
>> 2.45.1
>>