Re: [PATCH] Clarify that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented


Bin Meng
 

Hi Heinrich,

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:13 PM Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@...> wrote:

a
On 6/4/21 11:57 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...>
---

riscv-sbi.adoc | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/riscv-sbi.adoc b/riscv-sbi.adoc
index 11c30c3..8696f97 100644
--- a/riscv-sbi.adoc
+++ b/riscv-sbi.adoc
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
* Improved SBI introduction secion
* Improved documentation of SBI hart state managment extension
* Added suspend function to SBI hart state managment extension
+* Clarified that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented

=== Version 0.2

@@ -51,6 +52,11 @@ abstraction for platform (or hypervisor) specific functionality. The design
of the SBI follows the general RISC-V philosophy of having a small core along
with a set of optional modular extensions.

+SBI extensions as whole are optional but if a SBI <abc> extension compliant
%s/a SBI/an SBI/ (as you will pronounce SBI as as-bee-aye)
Sure. Will send a new patch to fix other places in the same file.


+with SBI v0.X spec is implemented then all functions of SBI <abc> extension
+as defined in SBI v0.X are assumed to be present. Basically, a SBI extension
Can we do away with all the placeholders?

How about:

"SBI extensions as whole are optional but they shall not be partially
implemented: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is
available, it must be implemented in total and conform to the SBI
version reported by sbi_get_spec_version()."
How about:

If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, all
functions that conform to the SBI version reported by
sbi_get_spec_version() must be implemented.

Regards,
Bin

Join tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org to automatically receive all group messages.