Re: SBI extension proposal

[Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org>]

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 09:46:09AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 03:05:51PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
[...]
> > > How about putting the version information into device tree
> > > and use the compatible string?  This seems more reliable
> > > than probing.
> > > e.g.
> > > firmware {
> > >         sbi {
> > >                 compatible = "riscv,sbi-r0p1", "riscv,sbi-r0p2";
> > >         };
> > > };
> > 
> > If it was just DT then I think having this information in DT makes
> > sense. In future,
> > we might definitely see some ACPI support in RISC-V too (just like ARM64 world).
> 
> 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.

Hello,

the notion that DT is a "Linux-only" description and not suitable
for other operating systems isn't correct.  Besides being used by
Linux, device-tree is also used by at least U-Boot, FreeBSD and
NetBSD.  Based on issues in the early days of DT one can surely
discuss about device-tree ABI stability, but since then a lot of
effort has been put into making DT ABI-stable, and in my
experience this effort has been successful.  On the other hand I
have experienced way more ACPI issues on x86-64 hardware than I
would like to remember, so I tend to assume that in the ACPI
world also not everything is nice and shining.

Regards,
Karsten
-- 
Gem. Par. 28 Abs. 4 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung
sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der
Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.

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