Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

[Atish Kumar Patra]

I just realized that the below email was not delivered to unix
platform mailing list and
linux-riscv mailing list because of the attachment. Reseeding it again
without the
attachment. Apologies for the noise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are delighted to announce the start of the public review period for
the Non-ISA Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) specification. The
SBI specification is considered as frozen now as per the RISC-V International
policies.

The review period begins today, Monday Jan 10, and ends on Monday
Jan 24 (inclusive).

The specification can be found here
https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/releases/download/v1.0-rc1/riscv-sbi.pdf

which was generated from the source available in the following GitHub
repository:
https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc

To respond to the public review, please either reply to this email or
send comments to the platform mailing list[1] or add issues to the
SBI GitHub repo[2]. We welcome all input and appreciate your time and
effort in helping us by reviewing the specification.

During the public review period, corrections, comments, and
suggestions, will be gathered for review by the Platform HSC members. Any
minor corrections and/or uncontroversial changes will be incorporated
into the specification. Any remaining issues or proposed changes will
be addressed in the public review summary report. If there are no
issues that require incompatible changes to the public review
specification, the platform HSC will recommend the updated
specifications be approved and ratified by the RISC-V Technical
Steering Committee and the RISC-V Board of Directors.

SBI specification is non-ISA specifications and will evolve over time
with new extensions as long as they are backward compatible. Any such
proposals for new extensions can be included in the future releases
after proper discussions in the platform working group meetings.

Thanks to all the contributors for all their hard work.

[1] tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org
[2] https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/issues

Regards,
Atish Patra

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [RISC-V] [tech-unixplatformspec] Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

[Atish Kumar Patra]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:59 AM Jonathan Behrens <behrensj@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, per the description of `sbi_probe_extension`, each of the extensions are supposed to specify an "extension-specific non-zero value" to return if they are available. However, right now I don't think any of them do. Is this something that should be fixed?
>

The description says "Returns 0 if the given SBI extension ID (EID) is
not available, or an extension-specific non-zero value if it is
available"
The specification says it should be non-zero as the value "0"
indicates non-availability of the extension. The exact return value
should be an implementation detail.

> Jonathan
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 1:44 PM atishp via lists.riscv.org <atishp=rivosinc.com@lists.riscv.org> wrote:
>>
>> I just realized that the below email was not delivered to unix
>> platform mailing list and
>> linux-riscv mailing list because of the attachment. Reseeding it again
>> without the
>> attachment. Apologies for the noise.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> We are delighted to announce the start of the public review period for
>> the Non-ISA Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) specification. The
>> SBI specification is considered as frozen now as per the RISC-V International
>> policies.
>>
>> The review period begins today, Monday Jan 10, and ends on Monday
>> Jan 24 (inclusive).
>>
>> The specification can be found here
>> https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/releases/download/v1.0-rc1/riscv-sbi.pdf
>>
>> which was generated from the source available in the following GitHub
>> repository:
>> https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc
>>
>> To respond to the public review, please either reply to this email or
>> send comments to the platform mailing list[1] or add issues to the
>> SBI GitHub repo[2]. We welcome all input and appreciate your time and
>> effort in helping us by reviewing the specification.
>>
>> During the public review period, corrections, comments, and
>> suggestions, will be gathered for review by the Platform HSC members. Any
>> minor corrections and/or uncontroversial changes will be incorporated
>> into the specification. Any remaining issues or proposed changes will
>> be addressed in the public review summary report. If there are no
>> issues that require incompatible changes to the public review
>> specification, the platform HSC will recommend the updated
>> specifications be approved and ratified by the RISC-V Technical
>> Steering Committee and the RISC-V Board of Directors.
>>
>> SBI specification is non-ISA specifications and will evolve over time
>> with new extensions as long as they are backward compatible. Any such
>> proposals for new extensions can be included in the future releases
>> after proper discussions in the platform working group meetings.
>>
>> Thanks to all the contributors for all their hard work.
>>
>> [1] tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org
>> [2] https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/issues
>>
>> Regards,
>> Atish Patra
>>
>>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>> View/Reply Online (#1637): https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unixplatformspec/message/1637
>> Mute This Topic: https://lists.riscv.org/mt/88379909/1775851
>> Group Owner: tech-unixplatformspec+owner@lists.riscv.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unixplatformspec/unsub [behrensj@mit.edu]
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Re: [RISC-V] [tech-unixplatformspec] Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 1/27/22 09:33, atishp@rivosinc.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 2:46 PM Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com 
> <mailto:andrew@sifive.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:50 PM Jonathan Behrens <behrensj@mit.edu
>     <mailto:behrensj@mit.edu>> wrote:
> 
>         If that is the intention, the text should be changed to "Returns
>         0 if the given SBI extension ID (EID) is not available, or an
>         *implementation defined* non-zero value if it is available".
>         Although, if the extensions aren't defining any meaning to the
>         various possible non-zero values, I personally don't see why we
>         shouldn't change it to "returns one if it is available".
> 
> 
>     I think allowing implementation-defined nonzero rather than
>     requiring it be 1 is OK, but I agree with your proposed wording change.
> 
> 
> Sounds good to me as well. I will make the change.

Why should the value be implementation specific and not extension specific?

I would prefer if the specification would provide extension specific 
unique return values instead of introducing ambiguity about possible 
return values.

This also allows us to define further return values per extension if 
needed in future. But currently all of these values can be defined as 1.

We just have to add this value 1 to each extension description.

Best regards

Heinrich

> 
> 
>         Jonathan
> 
>         On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:32 PM Atish Kumar Patra
>         <atishp@rivosinc.com <mailto:atishp@rivosinc.com>> wrote:
> 
>             On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:59 AM Jonathan Behrens
>             <behrensj@mit.edu <mailto:behrensj@mit.edu>> wrote:
>              >
>              > If I understand correctly, per the description of
>             `sbi_probe_extension`, each of the extensions are supposed
>             to specify an "extension-specific non-zero value" to return
>             if they are available. However, right now I don't think any
>             of them do. Is this something that should be fixed?
>              >
> 
>             The description says "Returns 0 if the given SBI extension
>             ID (EID) is
>             not available, or an extension-specific non-zero value if it is
>             available"
>             The specification says it should be non-zero as the value "0"
>             indicates non-availability of the extension. The exact
>             return value
>             should be an implementation detail.
> 
>              > Jonathan
>              >
>              > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 1:44 PM atishp via
>             lists.riscv.org <http://lists.riscv.org>
>             <atishp=rivosinc.com@lists.riscv.org
>             <mailto:rivosinc.com@lists.riscv.org>> wrote:
>              >>
>              >> I just realized that the below email was not delivered
>             to unix
>              >> platform mailing list and
>              >> linux-riscv mailing list because of the attachment.
>             Reseeding it again
>              >> without the
>              >> attachment. Apologies for the noise.
>              >>
>              >>
>             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              >> We are delighted to announce the start of the public
>             review period for
>              >> the Non-ISA Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI)
>             specification. The
>              >> SBI specification is considered as frozen now as per the
>             RISC-V International
>              >> policies.
>              >>
>              >> The review period begins today, Monday Jan 10, and ends
>             on Monday
>              >> Jan 24 (inclusive).
>              >>
>              >> The specification can be found here
>              >>
>             https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/releases/download/v1.0-rc1/riscv-sbi.pdf
>             <https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/releases/download/v1.0-rc1/riscv-sbi.pdf>
>              >>
>              >> which was generated from the source available in the
>             following GitHub
>              >> repository:
>              >> https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc
>             <https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc>
>              >>
>              >> To respond to the public review, please either reply to
>             this email or
>              >> send comments to the platform mailing list[1] or add
>             issues to the
>              >> SBI GitHub repo[2]. We welcome all input and appreciate
>             your time and
>              >> effort in helping us by reviewing the specification.
>              >>
>              >> During the public review period, corrections, comments, and
>              >> suggestions, will be gathered for review by the Platform
>             HSC members. Any
>              >> minor corrections and/or uncontroversial changes will be
>             incorporated
>              >> into the specification. Any remaining issues or proposed
>             changes will
>              >> be addressed in the public review summary report. If
>             there are no
>              >> issues that require incompatible changes to the public
>             review
>              >> specification, the platform HSC will recommend the updated
>              >> specifications be approved and ratified by the RISC-V
>             Technical
>              >> Steering Committee and the RISC-V Board of Directors.
>              >>
>              >> SBI specification is non-ISA specifications and will
>             evolve over time
>              >> with new extensions as long as they are backward
>             compatible. Any such
>              >> proposals for new extensions can be included in the
>             future releases
>              >> after proper discussions in the platform working group
>             meetings.
>              >>
>              >> Thanks to all the contributors for all their hard work.
>              >>
>              >> [1] tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org
>             <mailto:tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org>
>              >> [2]
>             https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/issues
>             <https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-sbi-doc/issues>
>              >>
>              >> Regards,
>              >> Atish Patra
>              >>
>              >>
>              >>
>              >>
>              >>
> 
> _._,_._,_
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Links:
> 
> You receive all messages sent to this group.
> 
> View/Reply Online (#1667) 
> <https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unixplatformspec/message/1667> | Reply 
> To Sender 
> <mailto:atishp@rivosinc.com?subject=Private:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BRISC-V%5D%20%5Btech-unixplatformspec%5D%20Public%20review%20of%20Supervisor%20Binary%20Interface%20%28SBI%29%20Specification> 
> | Reply To Group 
> <mailto:tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org?subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BRISC-V%5D%20%5Btech-unixplatformspec%5D%20Public%20review%20of%20Supervisor%20Binary%20Interface%20%28SBI%29%20Specification> 
> | Mute This Topic <https://lists.riscv.org/mt/88379909/6300605> | New 
> Topic <https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unixplatformspec/post>
> Your Subscription 
> <https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unixplatformspec/editsub/6300605> | 
> Contact Group Owner <mailto:tech-unixplatformspec+owner@lists.riscv.org> 
> | Unsubscribe <https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-unixplatformspec/unsub> 
> [heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com]
> 
> _._,_._,_


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv