From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BB7C433EF for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 10:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1347719AbiDBKT6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Apr 2022 06:19:58 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47546 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S240469AbiDBKT4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Apr 2022 06:19:56 -0400 Received: from jabberwock.ucw.cz (jabberwock.ucw.cz [46.255.230.98]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E58E31A9CB0 for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 03:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jabberwock.ucw.cz (Postfix, from userid 1017) id 397BC1C0B79; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 12:18:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 12:18:01 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: Arnd Bergmann , michael@michaelkloos.com, Paul Walmsley , aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Work to remove kernel dependence on the M-extension Message-ID: <20220402101801.GA9428@amd> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > >>That'd be wonderful, but unfortunately we're trending the other way -- > >>we're at the point where "words in the specification have meaning" is > >>controversial, so trying to talk about which flavors of the > >>specification are standard is just meaningless. I obviously hope that > >>gets sorted out, as we've clearly been pointed straight off a cliff for > >>a while now, but LMKL isn't the place to have that discussion. We've > >>all seen this before, nobody needs to be convinced this leads to a mess. > >> > >>Until we get to the point where "I wrote 'RISC-V' on that potato I found > >>in my couch" can be conclusively determined not compliant with the spec, > >>it's just silly to try and talk about what is. > > > >I would argue that codifying the required extensions through kernel sour= ce >=20 > The problem here isn't the required extensions, it's that vendors can cla= im > to implement an extension on hardware that doesn't exhibit any of the > behavior the specification expresses that systems with those extensions m= ust > have. The D1 is a very concrete example of this. Sounds like someone interested should make a webpage listing available CPUs that claim RISC-V compatibility but far short of advertised claims? I'd like to get RISC-V board to play with sometime soon, and some help in what board to get would be welcome... Best regards, Pavel --=20 People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates. --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAmJIItgACgkQMOfwapXb+vIdfQCaAgXDlqG17hztlH0G92GavUtD yZAAn13P0BpPSIS+L3ydlZhmPdM2ROWs =9jvG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N--