Re: [sw-dev] SBI extension proposal v2

From: Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof.johansson@gmail.com>,
	alankao@andestech.com, abner.chang@hpe.com,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	zong@andestech.com, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>,
	sw-dev@groups.riscv.org, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	mick@ics.forth.gr, Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@wdc.com>,
	Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>
Subject: Re: [sw-dev] SBI extension proposal v2
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:47:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbccd2dd56e1e5b498fd12abda22b863@mailhost.ics.forth.gr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <033872b8-49d5-2731-118f-967488f4763f@suse.de>

Στις 2019-01-28 18:38, Alexander Graf έγραψε:
> On 28.01.19 17:33, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> ---
>> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: 
>> https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:44 PM Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:
>> 
>>>> If Risc-V wants to avoid fragmentation, it should simply keep a 
>>>> firmer
>>>> reign in what is allowed in an implementation and keep a lid on such
>>>> horrid ideas as vendor specific userspace ISA extensions.
>>> 
>>> I tend to agree here. I think a global identification scheme is
>>> reasonable. But can't we just live with a single global spec that 
>>> people
>>> contribute to?
>> 
>>  unfortunately, alexander, the RISC-V Foundation has chosen to exclude
>> people from the discussion, by choosing an ITU-style ("Cartelled")
>> secretive standards development process.
>> 
>>  so as an "outsider" who for whatever reason cannot join that closed,
>> secretive process (for example a strategically-critical u-boot or
>> linux kernel developer with decades of relevant experience but who is
>> under contract) even if you wanted to contribute to a single global
>> spec, you can't.
>> 
>>  the reasons why the ITU-style Cartel was set up have been discussed
>> and made clear (patents); the justifications were knocked down; there
>> was no response.
> 
> I can see why you want to have a process like that in place for the ISA
> itself, but the SBI spec really should not have anything "innovative" 
> or
> patentable. At the end of the day, it's a communication mechanism.
> 
> 
> Alex

FYI
https://fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/riscvsbi/

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