Re: [sw-dev] SBI extension proposal v2

[Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>]

On 28.01.19 17:33, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ---
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> 
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:44 PM Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:
> 
>>> If Risc-V wants to avoid fragmentation, it should simply keep a firmer
>>> reign in what is allowed in an implementation and keep a lid on such
>>> horrid ideas as vendor specific userspace ISA extensions.
>>
>> I tend to agree here. I think a global identification scheme is
>> reasonable. But can't we just live with a single global spec that people
>> contribute to?
> 
>  unfortunately, alexander, the RISC-V Foundation has chosen to exclude
> people from the discussion, by choosing an ITU-style ("Cartelled")
> secretive standards development process.
> 
>  so as an "outsider" who for whatever reason cannot join that closed,
> secretive process (for example a strategically-critical u-boot or
> linux kernel developer with decades of relevant experience but who is
> under contract) even if you wanted to contribute to a single global
> spec, you can't.
> 
>  the reasons why the ITU-style Cartel was set up have been discussed
> and made clear (patents); the justifications were knocked down; there
> was no response.

I can see why you want to have a process like that in place for the ISA
itself, but the SBI spec really should not have anything "innovative" or
patentable. At the end of the day, it's a communication mechanism.


Alex

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