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

[Jiang, Haochen]

> From: Jiang, Haochen
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 4:50 PM
> 
> > From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 2:30 PM
> >
> > On 13.07.2026 04:20, Jiang, Haochen wrote:
> > >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > >> 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.

Thx,
Haochen