Re: [PATCH v3 04/29] riscv: zicfilp / zicfiss in dt-bindings (extensions.yaml)

Conor Dooley
2024-05-09T18:14:42Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2414 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:44:16AM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 02:41:05PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:37:21PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:58 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:34:52PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> > > > > Make an entry for cfi extensions in extensions.yaml.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > index 63d81dc895e5..45b87ad6cc1c 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > @@ -317,6 +317,16 @@ properties:
> > > > > The standard Zicboz extension for cache-block zeroing as ratified
> > > > > in commit 3dd606f ("Create cmobase-v1.0.pdf") of riscv-CMOs.
> > > > >
> > > > > + - const: zicfilp
> > > > > + description:
> > > > > + The standard Zicfilp extension for enforcing forward edge control-flow
> > > > > + integrity in commit 3a20dc9 of riscv-cfi and is in public review.
> > > >
> > > > Does in public review mean the commit sha is going to change?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Less likely. Next step after public review is to gather comments from
> > > public review.
> > > If something is really pressing and needs to be addressed, then yes
> > > this will change.
> > > Else this gets ratified as it is.
> >
> > If the commit sha can change, then it is useless. What's the guarantee
> > someone is going to remember to update it if it changes?
>
> Sorry for late reply.
>
> I was following existing wordings and patterns for messaging in this file.
> You would rather have me remove sha and only mention that spec is in public
> review?

Nope, having a commit sha is desired. None of this is mergeable until at
least the spec becomes frozen, so the sha can be updated at that point
to the freeze state - or better yet to the ratified state. Being in
public review is not sufficient.

Cheers,
Conor

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]