Re: [PATCH 0/4] Expose the isa-string via the AT_BASE_PLATFORM aux vector

Heiko Stübner
2023-05-03T10:31:02Z

Hi,

Am Dienstag, 2. Mai 2023, 19:15:29 CEST schrieb Palmer Dabbelt:
> On Tue, 02 May 2023 02:13:10 PDT (-0700), philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 09:58, Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu> writes:
> >>
> >> > It is a pity that the current interface was designed without involving
> >> > RVI (and that I had to ask my team to put together a patch set for
> >> > further discussion, given that none of the other major vendors in RVI
> >> > stepped forward). I guarantee that plenty of reviewers would have
> >> > highlighted that a central registry (even if it is just a kernel
> >> > header) should be avoided.
> >>
> >> Are you claiming that the hwprobe work was not done in the open, but
> >> secretly merged? That is not only incorrect, but rude to upstream RISC-V
> >> Linux developers. I suggest you review how you interact with upstream
> >> kernel work.
> >
> > Please don't put words into my mouth...
> >
> > I was merely pointing out that there was no engagement by the RVI
> > member companies (in regard to this mechanism) within RVI, which would
> > have prevented Jessica's issue.
> > This would have also helped to address the concerns on vendor-defined
> > extensions.
> >
> > Also who do you refer to when you say "how _you_ interact"? If it is
> > RVI that you refer to: it doesn't interact with upstream work
> > directly, as it doesn't own any engineering resources.
> > RVI provides a forum for member companies to come to an
> > understanding/design and then have the member companies perform the
> > work and take it upstream.
>
> I'm not even sure what you're looking for here: if RVI doesn't want to
> work upstream, then complaining that RVI isn't part of upstream
> discussions is pretty pointless.
>
> >> Why didn't RVI get involved in the review of the series? The expectation
> >> cannot be that all open source projects go to RVI, but rather the other
> >> way around.
> >
> > That is exactly the point I was making and which you seem to miss: RVI
> > does not own any engineering resources and depends solely on its
> > member companies to project into open source projects.
> >
> >> Take a look at commit ea3de9ce8aa2 ("RISC-V: Add a syscall for HW
> >> probing"). Your team was very much involved in the review.
> >
> > I am aware, as I had reviewed and commented on these are well.
> > And my only request (was and) is that we need to figure out a way to
> > efficiently deal with vendor-defined extensions.
>
> Maybe you should go talk to you team, then? Handling vendor extensions
> via hwprobe has been discussed, sounds like you're confused again.

I too have this vague memory of us talking about vendor extensions,
but my memory is really bad for stuff like this, so I spent the morning
combing through all the hwprobe iterations looking for it, but so far
have only found

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALs-HstoeoTWjTEZrLWouCgwq0t3tDB6uL=tB68RJDs1ub4Frw@mail.gmail.com/

I'm most likely just blind, but does someone have another pointer?

Thanks
Heiko