Re: [RISC-V][tech-os-a-see] [RISC-V] [tech-unprivileged] Direction of Identifying Extensions
toggle quoted message Show quoted text
To add on to Alan's point. These "extension" names were created simply to represent individual line items in the Profiles. In many cases these represent a one or two sentence statement in a Profile about an optional behavior or about a specific parameter value.
The combinatorics of taking every optional behavior, every parameter that can take on a set of possible values, and every WARL field and the allowed range of possibilities, and then creating an "extension" name for every individual possible "key- value" pair are crazy. (This is why people instead use key-value representations.)
For Profiles, these names have been created on an as-needed basis for specific "key-value" pairs, and no further. Their motivation was to simply have acronymic "extension" names for each of these line items.
In contrast, discovery schemes - like Device Tree, ACPI, and RISC-V Unified Discovery - want something distinctly different. Namely standard "key" names for options, parameters, and WARL fields; standard names for the values of a "key"; and a schema for representing a set of key-value pairs.
Any effort to standardize key names and value names across discovery schemes should be kept separate from the acronymic naming in Profiles of specific line items (aka specific key-value pairs).
Lastly, I think everyone would agree that option / parameter / WARL field names, and their associated value names, are not "extensions". And hence should not be mixed up with the "extension" names created and used in Profiles. Any standardization of "key" names and "value" names should simply focus on usage in discovery schemes (i.e. DT, ACPI, UD). This needs to support all possible key-value pairs.
As to whether all these acronymic line items or "key-value" pairs in Profiles are "extensions", there is probably contention, but I would at least say that these are not extensions in the usual sense. And they should exist and arise solely in the context of Profiles (for the intended purpose of giving an extension-like acronymic name to each line item).
In short, I would suggest that it is probably best to keep discussion of these two topics separate.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022, 1:30 PM Allen Baum <allen.baum@...> wrote: