Re: [PATCH] x86: separate AVX10.1-aux from AVX10.2

On 17.07.2026 08:31, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>> From: Jiang, Haochen
>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 4:50 PM
>>
>>> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 2:30 PM
>>>
>>> On 13.07.2026 04:20, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
>>>>> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 8:23 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> --- a/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>>>> +++ b/gas/config/tc-i386.c
>>>>> @@ -1247,13 +1247,14 @@ static const arch_entry cpu_arch[] =
>>>>>    VECARCH (sm4, SM4, ANY_SM4, reset),
>>>>>    SUBARCH (pbndkb, PBNDKB, PBNDKB, false),
>>>>>    VECARCH (avx10.1, AVX10_1, ANY_AVX512F, set),
>>>>> +  VECARCH (avx10.1aux, AVX10_1_AUX, ANY_AVX10_1_AUX, set),
>>>>
>>>> Maybe avx10_v1_aux instead of avx10.1aux to align with documentation?
>>>
>>> I was wondering, but imo the existing "avx10.1" makes it pretty clear cut.
>>> I would have wanted to make it "avx10.1-aux", but dashes aren't okay to use
>>> here, and "avx10.1_aux" feels somewhat odd.
>>
>> If we do not want to use v1, then the current name is definitely a win.
>>
>> This is an AMD proposed feature bit actually, while Intel will emulate that bit
>> to avoid break on HW. So, let's wait AMD folks to share their opinion on option
>> names. We also need to make sure that it is the same naming convention as
>> AVX10_V2_AUX.
> 
> Ping for this discussion, Ganesh, what is AMD's opinion on this? Do you want
> to keep the "v" in name? Whatever it is, we need to keep the naming convention
> same between AVX10_V1_AUX and AVX10_V2_AUX.

Short of further feedback I've put this in. We still have some time to massage
things, before the 2.48 release.

Jan