SBI extension proposal

[atish.patra@wdc.com (Atish Patra)]

On 11/1/18 4:25 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 12:03:49PM +0100, Philipp Hug wrote:
>> Am Do., 1. Nov. 2018 um 10:46 Uhr schrieb Richard W.M. Jones
>> <rjones@redhat.com>:
>>>
>>> I agree.  Please try not to make things that depend on DT, as it's a
>>> Linux-only description which isn't suitable for other OSes and has a
>>> poorly defined ABI.
>>>
>> You don't have to depend on DT. If you implement ACPI you'd put this
>> information in ACPI as well as you do with other information about the
>> platform.
>> What's the advantage of putting static information into an SBI call
>> instead of putting it in DT, ACPI, ...?
> 
> You only have to put it in one place.
> 
> Rich.
> 
I agree with Richard. It is better to manage it in SBI implementation. 
This version will not change in every kernel release or so. I think 
having global SBI version in SBI spec is fine.

However, we may need to put <function,version> for vendor specific APIs 
in DT/ACPI as pointed by olof earlier. That will help to avoid conflicts.

I will update the proposal such that it is clear that we are not making 
DT mandatory, ACPI is an option as well. SBI spec should independent of 
OS specific spec.


Regards,
Atish