On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 20:48 +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:13 PM Heinrich Schuchardt <
Sure. Will send a new patch to fix other places in the same file.
On 6/4/21 11:57 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...>%s/a SBI/an SBI/ (as you will pronounce SBI as as-bee-aye)
riscv-sbi.adoc | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/riscv-sbi.adoc b/riscv-sbi.adoc
index 11c30c3..8696f97 100644
@@ -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>
+with SBI v0.X spec is implemented then all functions of SBICan we do away with all the placeholders?
+as defined in SBI v0.X are assumed to be present. Basically, a
"SBI extensions as whole are optional but they shall not be
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()."
This one is more verbose but sounds better to me. May be we should just
explicitly say that "all functions belonging to that extension must be
implemented" similar to the below version.
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.