From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A488B134CCF for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 01:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789002745; cv=none; b=Ll1wPR6KCLVhV6ymIyHRxgeqny1Ww218sVucC6/afNJMWGMNOUARWEN5UCLzYI6UxMLwzxYoRvcTB84uKVmOjPew/gPNV3YgW/jCAA3PJ5KoCmq+DmySdXq1X9WyFDH3vE5FsTaB6rmhR7XN5/HU0Q+1q+iDA36et2adIRJU/TI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789002745; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VysFvzTUtHoHNiKGP3ppBo5Ab3RwR88lLPEvdYjfL1w=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=eSh8sHxLh+J2Hwy5ZkL+6fQqLCmwKvRkJ0SnoCeN8euSJIn9vumWIj2FeexiE+qrWQBPVuPvFkojZlBMPQFaFdw4kyAti83soMX22Iu/ZDWG9hz69ycS06MNr3UInPfJlomvWZ/rd6t4IvFstXvyLAEJClgsv8xZeJKuWKghjIs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=gi9UKqLK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="gi9UKqLK" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16A961F000FF; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 01:12:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789002734; bh=DIZ6UHoQq54klvG6jMRNKYHV1stk0lix1peQsgT9lXc=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=gi9UKqLKjY8Lal+pXvptfMis5egJC+EFoJyT8rewGlEHp2ilO19ua7NZ25tbFhOKE Rw0OYfVVnfWRomneUkwgVMos9NLCPLJP3hhlCH7Z08rIEn7PsKTEjvlpr4jSbT2H+f uUV+hsW3EJCFGqNYq2IcX+nV3Z0RgvZdamZR+WWmOC++ZBQwByDRWQPlYArYE2Gfgw Wcoiah2rYR04hLxW+RBVTqTUicFSge2ygc3faKAYEMMKY7nDOs6LNsXqKJw2oK2W8j vetZni/Qd2PWFomZCSS/jlph2tGkpC0TDAhjTC2VkFd9i7kYYrdt8pqnDzQlNx+UvQ mgYksWSQUebCg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/6] mailbox: riscv-rpmi-message: add TEE service group definitions Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: marouene.boubakri@oss.nxp.com Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260910012057.106966-5-marouene.boubakri@oss.nxp.com> References: <20260910012057.106966-1-marouene.boubakri@oss.nxp.com> <20260910012057.106966-5-marouene.boubakri@oss.nxp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 01:12:13 +0000 Message-Id: <20260910011214.16A961F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] Addition of definitions for an unratified, draft RISC-V specific= ation violates the architecture's patch acceptance policy. -- commit d0b34adf5a1cb66c49ab346280950958f9917cd2 Author: Marouene Boubakri mailbox: riscv-rpmi-message: add TEE service group definitions This commit adds the TEE service group ID and TEE service IDs to the RPMI definitions to support the RPMI v2.0 specification. > diff --git a/include/linux/mailbox/riscv-rpmi-message.h b/include/linux/m= ailbox/riscv-rpmi-message.h > index e135c6564d0c8..0530e1dddf3c5 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mailbox/riscv-rpmi-message.h > +++ b/include/linux/mailbox/riscv-rpmi-message.h [ ... ] > @@ -119,6 +120,30 @@ enum rpmi_sysmsi_service_id { > RPMI_SYSMSI_SRV_ID_MAX_COUNT > }; > =20 > +/* RPMI TEE service IDs */ > +enum rpmi_tee_service_id { > + RPMI_TEE_SRV_ENABLE_NOTIFICATION =3D 0x01, [Severity: Medium] Does adding definitions from a specification draft violate the RISC-V patch acceptance policy? The commit message notes that the RPMI v2.0 specification is "currently in development" and the patch adds service IDs defined in a "specification draft". Documentation/arch/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst requires RISC-V specifications to be either "Frozen" or "Ratified" before patches can be accepted into the kernel. If the specification changes before final ratification, wouldn't the kernel be forced to maintain backward compatibility for unratified draft elements like rpmi_tee_service_id in include/linux/mailbox/riscv-rpmi-message.h, leading to maintenance burden and potential ABI breakage? > + RPMI_TEE_SRV_PROBE_FEATURES =3D 0x02, > + RPMI_TEE_SRV_PROBE_SYSTEM =3D 0x03, [ ... ] --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260910012057.1069= 66-1-marouene.boubakri@oss.nxp.com?part=3D4