From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7FB5C54EE9 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:49:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=O5U10OrQKBsccLDfBw8pQuBckrdl+itA6503hpyB7GM=; b=0+iwTo+c+PrPjM YfpBk81gxMM7uAOs9haZlnkHs5/aSDOg/CXA3c+ot1BXS7u/hSMnwJ3cZM3XVzABMCErvwBLSzgeY N7OCfrICNJjRmrRGcHQ3f++IjqrDECBrz5PJjgsEkp/WGJQNua0lEbLhinNGx+H7npQdywr/KQE0l ySco3PaaViUXYTK+N/exYbn6fv3eT0u3V4pNMLKC9w+h7Z/zkrvRItNGrCDzfaFTeQBnOfPqQrQCc mhad7Hi+zYX008po1EtIbaNzJ4yBXMa8U/OBhP6m2aIlQqnn1GvfDsOli4iB/fxubIoZmxxTnR/7O Ha+/tlrv3Xa2ePBjrGGQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oahMz-005ZAh-0N; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:49:17 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oahMw-005Z9B-34 for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:49:15 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8949362BAF; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C292C433C1; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:49:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1663696152; bh=85Re93+D9nWBQDkgwZDyip0c7k+U9prWgqkp2PLRQ7c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Cus5+79BZEaCzE4coHosBBLd78NWbEIBBMNWhey+dgjPEt1bsD0xND1xCPtKp/4ip v4kwWs2VXT7o0SNyUlcPi7CpL/e+D8oK4iMTJkTOrhnpbRSyNBYopQwco2hr3/+zK5 U0x956phkKUn2699f8ATJv42/nH4EBuEepfJgTqYoK5C2GI4KJAfcpMFWv+h5MXcz+ fbz71GU7uBAb0w2ZolnQk58Gjwcu0wvrv6kFfsCaoCbrURPA7jNyloBpps6Tp6fD1y RJxbWxiuaykxPYVAisl9cHeOCmi52pj2OwxoOAuKGGpPg8yheMMlqbRdItwTW0d/3+ /itvAvqdz4v4A== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 18:49:08 +0100 From: Conor Dooley To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Documentation: RISC-V: Mention the UEFI Standards Message-ID: References: <20220920140138.27210-1-palmer@rivosinc.com> <20220920140138.27210-3-palmer@rivosinc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220920140138.27210-3-palmer@rivosinc.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220920_104914_574874_26A3B929 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 26.88 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 07:01:41AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > The current patch acceptance policy requires that specifications are > approved by the RISC-V foundation, but we rely on external > specifications as well. This explicitly calls out the UEFI > specifications that we're starting to depend on. > > Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt > --- > This also came up during the Plumbers BoF. The other discussed options > were to wait for an ACPI/UEFI specification to be published or to just > not wait at all, but this middle ground matches how we handle the RISC-V > specifications and it seems like there was broad agreement on it. > > As usual with policy stuff I'll wait a bit for others to have a chance > to chime in, but I think the wording on this one is at least easier to > reason about than some of the others. > --- > Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst > index 8087718556da..08cb92324eaf 100644 > --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst > +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst > @@ -20,9 +20,11 @@ Submit Checklist Addendum > ------------------------- > We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the > specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being > +unlikely to make incompatible changes in the future. For Nit, but the wording here is awkward since it sounds like the module or extension is the "actor". How about: s/make incompatible changes/be incompatibly changed/ > +specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or > +"Ratified", for the UEFI specifications this means a published ECR. > +(Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that > +contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.) Could we just drop the brackets from this sentence? Either way, policy wise/idealogically this again looks good to me, so with or without the wording changed: Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley > Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create > their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required Thanks, Conor. _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv