Re: M-Platform/CSI-Base naming
+ platforms mailing list
Regards
Kumar
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 9:25 AM
To: darius@...
Cc: Kumar Sankaran <ksankaran@...>
Subject: M-Platform/CSI-Base naming
Darius,
As indicated, I'd like to fully understand your thoughts on the M platform and how it could evolve. Note that defining this platform does not preclude us from adding other deeply-embedded platforms in the future.
Maybe, to start, let me summarize what has been communicated already to various stakeholders:
1. It will be based on the RVM profile (which gives us a lot of options and very few guarantees).
2. We want to provide source code compatibility (for some parts of the source code).
The blueprint for this was ARM's CMSIS… i.e., a software interface spec that allows portability for software on uCs in deeply embedded use cases.
Assumption 1 (RVM) precludes us from having anything resembling binary compatibility.
Note that CSI was chosen as an unencumbered term to mean "Common Software Interface".
Given that we'll have a large number of extensions to the basic CSI (e.g. an abstraction of crypto-operations, security features, NN, etc.), the model is similar to the ISA: a small CSI with many extensions for specific use-cases.
This plan and specification scope have been communicated all the way up to the BoD in early summer. The lack of a draft document should not preclude us from communicating this plan and scope to the ecosystem at Summit — and this should be what drives any discussion on the naming.
That said: please share your concerns and thoughts…
Philipp.