Re: [RISC-V] [software] Add SBI extension space for firmware code base implementation


Jonathan Behrens <behrensj@...>
 

I think tech-unixplatformspec@... might be the right list?

To address the PR itself, I'd personally prefer to have this space allocated based on SBI implementation IDs analogously to how the vendor space is allocated. It also probably makes sense to pick a different address range so experimental extension space doesn't have to move.

Jonathan


On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:39 AM Abner Chang via lists.riscv.org <abner.chang=hpe.com@...> wrote:

Seems opensbi ML is no longer exist? Use software@... insrtead.

 

From: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:23 PM
To: Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@...>; Anup Patel <anup.patel@...>
Cc: opensbi@...; Schaefer, Daniel (DualStudy) <daniel.schaefer@...>
Subject: Add SBI extension space for firmware code base implementation

 

Hi Atish and Anup,

We are working on some edk2-specific SBI extension which intends to be used by upper layer edk2 drivers. We originally consider to use Vendor Extension space however vendor may have its own proprietary SBI extension as well. In order to prevent from the conflicts of SBI extension space, we propose to have a range for firmware code base. The changes look like the PR below,

 

https://github.com/riscv/riscv-sbi-doc/pull/43

 

How do you think?

Thanks

Abner

Join tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org to automatically receive all group messages.