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

Palmer Dabbelt
2023-05-02T17:15:50Z

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.