Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification
Andrew Waterman
Hi Atish, I've got some minor feedback from the Architecture Review committee: We think that only the RV64 SBI should be ratified at this time. The RV32 variants are likely to need some reworking (e.g., passing a physical address as an unsigned long precludes use of the full 34-bit physical-address space), and the RV32 variants aren't currently in high demand, anyway. It would be helpful to add some non-normative text about what the SBI assumes about discovery. For example, there's no SBI call to retrieve the value of the misa CSR--which is reasonable because the OS is presumably expected to retrieve this information from the DeviceTree--but readers who don't know that might find this surprising. Thanks, Andrew
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:43 AM <atishp@...> wrote: I just realized that the below email was not delivered to unix
|
|