On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 19:05 +0000, Atish Patra wrote:
On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 20:48 +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
Hi Heinrich,This one is more verbose but sounds better to me. May be we should
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
* Added suspend function to SBI hart state managment
+* Clarified that a SBI extension cannot be partially
=== 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
available, it must be implemented in total and conform to the SBI
version reported by sbi_get_spec_version()."
explicitly say that "all functions belonging to that extension must
implemented" similar to the below version.
Are you planning to send v2 for this patch or I can modify the text and
If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available,
functions that conform to the SBI version reported by
sbi_get_spec_version() must be implemented.