Re: IOMMU proposal on wiki


The Committees (who can delegate to SIGs) now constitute the mechanism for continuity as Task groups must have small tasks and end when they complete their tasks.

The goal is that some committee or SIG tells us the big picture so we know all the pieces that must be there for members to be successful and govern across a number of task groups who may do individual components of the overall effort.

Rather than continue with dozens of emails, it might be useful to get on the phone to quickly resolve any of your questions. I can do that. Let me know.


On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:48 PM Greg Favor <gfavor@...> wrote:
I think this is where RVI and Mark will differ.  Even though not everything must go through a SIG, the TSC (going forward) expects roadmap/strategy/gap work in place first before one or more specific tightly-focused TGs are spun up.


On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:36 PM Ken Dockser <kad@...> wrote:
RISC-V policy does not require a SIG. Clearly this IOMMU proposal is well thought out. But it is just a starting point; the whole community is welcome to contribute to the IOMMU TG. You are free to bring up any issues you want in the IOMMU TG.

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 8:16 PM Greg Favor <gfavor@...> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 5:54 PM Greg Favor via <> wrote:
Mark wrote:
> A similar thing occurred with graphics and shading. We had them step and
> back and develop a strategy with an eye to what it will take for a
> member to be successful in this area including gaps and prioritization
> of filling those gaps.I suggest we do the same here. In order to get TSC
> to approve a new TG, we will need to present them the whole picture and
> how this fits into it. We will require the same for IOMMU.

This is also what happened with the aborted RAS group, i.e. it started off wanting to focus on just one thing without first establishing overall RAS strategy, gaps, and plan of attack.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.