From 37f0ab1477994a0d0dc3c1e0de030fae07d37965 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Palmer Dabbelt Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 18:08:12 -0800 Subject: Documentation: RISC-V: Fix a typo in patch-acceptance I just stumbled on this when modifying the docs. Reviewed-by: Anup Patel Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-2-palmer@rivosinc.com Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt --- Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'Documentation/riscv') diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index dfe0ac5624fb..5da6f9b273d6 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V Foundation. To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific -RISC-V extensions, we'll only to accept patches for extensions that +RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation. (Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) -- cgit From 936100d4507f2e9f0be4621b0c698180d65e8264 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Palmer Dabbelt Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 18:08:13 -0800 Subject: Documentation: RISC-V: Allow patches for non-standard behavior The patch acceptance policy forbids accepting support for non-standard behavior. This policy was written in order to both steer implementers towards the standards and to avoid coupling the upstream kernel too tightly to vendor-specific features. Those were good goals, but in practice the policy just isn't working: every RISC-V system we have needs vendor-specific behavior in the kernel and we end up taking that support which violates the policy. That's confusing for contributors, which is the main reason we have a written policy in the first place. So let's just start taking code for vendor-defined behavior. Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley Reviewed-by: Anup Patel Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/alpine.DEB.2.21.999.2211181027590.4480@utopia.booyaka.com/ [Palmer: merge in Paul's suggestions] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-3-palmer@rivosinc.com Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt --- Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'Documentation/riscv') diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index 5da6f9b273d6..d9d628505cd8 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst @@ -29,7 +29,11 @@ their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V Foundation. To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific -RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that -have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation. -(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees -containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) +RISC-V extensions, we'll only consider patches for extensions that either: + +- Have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation, or +- Have been implemented in hardware that is widely available, per standard + Linux practice. + +(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing +code for any custom extensions that they wish.) -- cgit From 68eabc72023f2c1cdbf7932fde57a7811c65b414 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Palmer Dabbelt Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 18:08:14 -0800 Subject: Documentation: RISC-V: Mention the UEFI Standards The current patch acceptance policy requires that specifications are approved by the RISC-V foundation, but we rely on external specifications as well. This explicitly calls out the UEFI specifications that we're starting to depend on. Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley Reviewed-by: Atish Patra Reviewed-by: Anup Patel Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-4-palmer@rivosinc.com Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt --- Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'Documentation/riscv') diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index d9d628505cd8..389a45584386 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst @@ -20,9 +20,11 @@ Submit Checklist Addendum ------------------------- We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being -"Frozen" or "Ratified" by the RISC-V Foundation. (Developers may, of -course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that contain code for -any draft extensions that they wish.) +unlikely to be incompatibly changed in the future. For +specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or +"Ratified", for the UEFI forum specifications this means a published +ECR. (Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees +that contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.) Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required -- cgit From a39c636506cb90b9ba25cbb0a78bbcc3725ea227 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Palmer Dabbelt Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 18:08:15 -0800 Subject: Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: s/implementor/implementer Implementor does appear to be a word, but it's not very common. Suggested-by: Conor Dooley Reviewed-by: Anup Patel Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-5-palmer@rivosinc.com Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt --- Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'Documentation/riscv') diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index 389a45584386..07d5a5623e2a 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or ECR. (Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.) -Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create +Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementers to create their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V Foundation. To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential @@ -37,5 +37,5 @@ RISC-V extensions, we'll only consider patches for extensions that either: - Have been implemented in hardware that is widely available, per standard Linux practice. -(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing +(Implementers, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) -- cgit