From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com> Cc: corbet@lwn.net, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, conor.dooley@microchip.com, Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@rivosinc.com, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: RISC-V: Allow patches for non-standard behavior Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 21:56:17 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20221013045619.18906-3-palmer@rivosinc.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20221013045619.18906-1-palmer@rivosinc.com> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> The patch acceptance policy forbids accepting support for non-standard behavior. This policy was written in order to both steer implementers towards the standards and to avoid coupling the upstream kernel too tightly to vendor-specific features. Those were good goals, but in practice the policy just isn't working: every RISC-V system we have needs vendor-specific behavior in the kernel and we end up taking that support which violates the policy. That's confusing for contributors, which is the main reason we have a written policy in the first place. So let's just start taking code for vendor-defined behavior. Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> --- Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 13 +++++++++---- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index 5da6f9b273d6..0a6199233ede 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst @@ -29,7 +29,12 @@ their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V Foundation. To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific -RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that -have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation. -(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees -containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) +RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that either: + +- Have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation, or +- Have been implemented in hardware that is either widely available or + for which a timeline for availability has been made public. + +Hardware that does not meet its published timelines may have support +removed. (Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel +trees containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) -- 2.38.0
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com> Cc: corbet@lwn.net, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, conor.dooley@microchip.com, Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@rivosinc.com, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: RISC-V: Allow patches for non-standard behavior Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 21:56:17 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20221013045619.18906-3-palmer@rivosinc.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20221013045619.18906-1-palmer@rivosinc.com> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> The patch acceptance policy forbids accepting support for non-standard behavior. This policy was written in order to both steer implementers towards the standards and to avoid coupling the upstream kernel too tightly to vendor-specific features. Those were good goals, but in practice the policy just isn't working: every RISC-V system we have needs vendor-specific behavior in the kernel and we end up taking that support which violates the policy. That's confusing for contributors, which is the main reason we have a written policy in the first place. So let's just start taking code for vendor-defined behavior. Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> --- Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 13 +++++++++---- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index 5da6f9b273d6..0a6199233ede 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst @@ -29,7 +29,12 @@ their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V Foundation. To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific -RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that -have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation. -(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees -containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) +RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that either: + +- Have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation, or +- Have been implemented in hardware that is either widely available or + for which a timeline for availability has been made public. + +Hardware that does not meet its published timelines may have support +removed. (Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel +trees containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) -- 2.38.0 _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-13 4:56 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-10-13 4:56 [PATCH v2 0/4] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance changes Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 4:56 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 4:56 ` [PATCH 1/4] Documentation: RISC-V: Fix a typo in patch-acceptance Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 4:56 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 5:08 ` Anup Patel 2022-10-13 5:08 ` Anup Patel 2022-10-13 4:56 ` Palmer Dabbelt [this message] 2022-10-13 4:56 ` [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: RISC-V: Allow patches for non-standard behavior Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 5:09 ` Anup Patel 2022-10-13 5:09 ` Anup Patel 2022-11-18 10:49 ` Paul Walmsley 2022-11-24 22:20 ` Conor Dooley 2022-11-24 22:20 ` Conor Dooley 2022-10-13 4:56 ` [PATCH 3/4] Documentation: RISC-V: Mention the UEFI Standards Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 4:56 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 5:10 ` Anup Patel 2022-10-13 5:10 ` Anup Patel 2022-10-13 4:56 ` [PATCH 4/4] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: s/implementor/implementer Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 4:56 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2022-10-13 5:11 ` Anup Patel 2022-10-13 5:11 ` Anup Patel 2022-10-13 11:39 ` Conor Dooley 2022-10-13 11:39 ` Conor Dooley
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20221013045619.18906-3-palmer@rivosinc.com \ --to=palmer@rivosinc.com \ --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \ --cc=atishp@rivosinc.com \ --cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \ --cc=conor@kernel.org \ --cc=corbet@lwn.net \ --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux@rivosinc.com \ --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \ --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.