On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:52:06AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Thu, 02 Feb 2023 23:32:47 PST (-0800), Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > > On 3 February 2023 00:12:01 GMT, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > > > The AIA specification was only partially frozen, but provides no way to > > > refer to the subset of behavior that has been frozen. > > > > Ahh, wonderful. > > > > > It seems like > > > there's not a whole lot of interest in the non-frozen behavior, so let's > > > just define an extension that only consists of the frozen behavior > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt > > > --- > > > Documentation/riscv/extensions.rst | 10 ++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/riscv/extensions.rst > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/extensions.rst b/Documentation/riscv/extensions.rst > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..c12bd3780520 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/riscv/extensions.rst > > > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > + > > > +Custom RISC-V Extensions > > > +======================== > > > + > > > +* The `Xlinuxsmaia` and `Xlinuxssaia` extensions coorespond to the standard > > > > Typo: correspond > > > > > + `Smaia` and `Ssaia` extensions as defined by version 1.0-RC2 of the RISC-V > > > + Advanced Interrupt Architecture (AIA) specification, with the difference that > > > + chapters 5 (Duo-PLIC) and 9 (IOMMU Support for MSIs to Virtual Machines) do > > > + not exist. > > > > Perhaps this document needs an intro section specifying what you expect to go in it. > > Is this for any custom stuff, or just places where Linux has to work around RVI? > > > From talking on the patchwork call, it sounds like 1.0.0-rc2 may not be > what's going to be ratified. If the plan really is to remove the draft > chapters when the spec is ratified, which does sometimes happen, then those > might just solve the problem -- but sometimes things marked as drafts get > ratified, so we really just have no idea what the spec is going to be. It's > going to be pretty much imposible to get everyone on the same page until we > can see the spec that's going to be ratified. So I think until that gets > sorted out, there's not really a whole lot more we can do here. > > The other option would be to just properly commit to moving away from ISA > strings in the DT interface. We've sort of soft-forked already, but we're > at least trying to keep things looking similar. Properly forking would > really make everyone happy, as we'd no longer need to worry about the specs > getting the details right. So reading between the lines (based on that patchwork call), this is a self-NAK for this patch and a NAK for adding the regular variants of these extensions to the ISA string in the first place. Perhaps it'd be worth noting that on [1] where the CC list is both broader and more specific? (Apologies if you already indended doing so there & I'm just preempting you). Thanks, Conor. 1 - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAK9=C2XAaB0GXh1tO060dWxZR2pSAVJhejUaa+W=Q+9nk_gYKA@mail.gmail.com/T/#ma126fa3fcd97af944a659ad544753020fac7b89d