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,

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()."

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.

Hi Bin,
Are you planning to send v2 for this patch or I can modify the text and
merge?