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

> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 2:33 PM
> 
> 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.
> 

+ Venkat from AMD for feedback.

As long as we keep the same naming convention between AVX10_V1_AUX and
AVX10_V2_AUX, it is ok to me.

Thx,
Haochen