|
Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] Update terminology and specification tables
Currently, there is no released version of the PLIC spec. We should add
that to a TODO list before the platform spec goes out for a public
review.
It should be "v2.0.1"
Not sure if we should refer
Currently, there is no released version of the PLIC spec. We should add
that to a TODO list before the platform spec goes out for a public
review.
It should be "v2.0.1"
Not sure if we should refer
|
By
atishp@...
·
#1257
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] Additional requirements for H-extension
If writing non-zero values to mtval and stval are going to be required by OS/A-base, then I think it should require non-zero values for mtinst and htinst. The transformed instruction encodings for
If writing non-zero values to mtval and stval are going to be required by OS/A-base, then I think it should require non-zero values for mtinst and htinst. The transformed instruction encodings for
|
By
Jonathan Behrens <behrensj@...>
·
#1256
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] Move terminology and specifications tables to correct location
Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...>
--
Regards,
Atish
Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...>
--
Regards,
Atish
|
By
atishp@...
·
#1255
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] Follow profile naming as-per latest RISC-V profiles spec
Here are more details on profile naming convention
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/blob/master/profiles.adoc
However, the current draft profile spec doesn't event mention about
these terms
Here are more details on profile naming convention
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-profiles/blob/master/profiles.adoc
However, the current draft profile spec doesn't event mention about
these terms
|
By
atishp@...
·
#1254
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] Minor cosmetic changes in SBI section of OS/A-base platform
Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...>
--
Regards,
Atish
Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...>
--
Regards,
Atish
|
By
atishp@...
·
#1253
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] Re-write the interrupts and timer section
These categories can be subsections instead of just bullets.
Just to align with other options: "Legacy wired IRQs" will be better
/s/legacy/existing ? Most of the platform released in next couple
These categories can be subsections instead of just bullets.
Just to align with other options: "Legacy wired IRQs" will be better
/s/legacy/existing ? Most of the platform released in next couple
|
By
atishp@...
·
#1252
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] Additional requirements for H-extension
Can the *tinst wording correspond more directly to priv Table 5.9. Is the intent the following, or something more relaxed?
- "Yes" in the "Transformed Standard Instruction" means that that content
Can the *tinst wording correspond more directly to priv Table 5.9. Is the intent the following, or something more relaxed?
- "Yes" in the "Transformed Standard Instruction" means that that content
|
By
Josh Scheid
·
#1251
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] Additional requirements for H-extension
Hi Jonathan,
Current approach is to mandate mtinst and htinst only for OS-A Server. If more people agree then we can mandate mtinst and htinst for OS-A Base.
Regards,
Anup
From: Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
Current approach is to mandate mtinst and htinst only for OS-A Server. If more people agree then we can mandate mtinst and htinst for OS-A Base.
Regards,
Anup
From: Jonathan
|
By
Anup Patel
·
#1250
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] Additional requirements for H-extension
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
Alistair
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
Alistair
|
By
Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
·
#1249
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] Follow profile naming as-per latest RISC-V profiles spec
Why do these have 64 at the end?
Alistair
Why do these have 64 at the end?
Alistair
|
By
Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
·
#1248
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] Minor cosmetic changes in SBI section of OS/A-base platform
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
Alistair
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
Alistair
|
By
Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
·
#1247
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] Move terminology and specifications tables to correct location
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
Alistair
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
Alistair
|
By
Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@...>
·
#1246
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] Update terminology and specification tables
Hi Peter,
I think the links are malformed if we directly click from
this email because these links are in asciidoc syntax.
The link syntax for asciidoc is:
link:<url>[<display_text>]
Hi Peter,
I think the links are malformed if we directly click from
this email because these links are in asciidoc syntax.
The link syntax for asciidoc is:
link:<url>[<display_text>]
|
By
Anup Patel
·
#1245
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] Update terminology and specification tables
Greg and Anup,
I think the links are mostly just malformed.
For example, the first one was presumably meant to go to
https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_9_2021_03_18.pdf
and
Greg and Anup,
I think the links are mostly just malformed.
For example, the first one was presumably meant to go to
https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_9_2021_03_18.pdf
and
|
By
Peter Glaskowsky
·
#1244
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] Additional requirements for H-extension
The H-extension adds a mtinst and htinst registers. If we're requiring non-zero values in mtval and stval, shouldn't those have similar requirements?
The H-extension adds a mtinst and htinst registers. If we're requiring non-zero values in mtval and stval, shouldn't those have similar requirements?
|
By
Jonathan Behrens <behrensj@...>
·
#1243
·
|
|
[RESEND PATCH] Move ACPI requirements to separate document.
The platform spec will refer to this ACPI requirements document
similar to other specifications like SBI etc.
Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...>
---
riscv-platform-spec.adoc | 76
The platform spec will refer to this ACPI requirements document
similar to other specifications like SBI etc.
Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...>
---
riscv-platform-spec.adoc | 76
|
By
Sunil V L
·
#1242
·
|
|
[PATCH] Move ACPI requirements to separate document and provide the link to it from the main platform spec.
Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...>
---
riscv-platform-spec.adoc | 76 +++-------------------------------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
diff --git
Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...>
---
riscv-platform-spec.adoc | 76 +++-------------------------------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
diff --git
|
By
Sunil V L
·
#1241
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] Additional requirements for H-extension
On 07/08/21, 12:56 PM, "Heinrich Schuchardt" <xypron.glpk@...> wrote:
The phrase
"Platforms are allowed to operate only in little-endian mode"
literally means that
* some
On 07/08/21, 12:56 PM, "Heinrich Schuchardt" <xypron.glpk@...> wrote:
The phrase
"Platforms are allowed to operate only in little-endian mode"
literally means that
* some
|
By
Anup Patel
·
#1240
·
|
|
[PATCH V3] * riscv-platform-spec: Real-time Clock to server extension
From: Abner Chang <abner.chang@...>
In V3:
- Change System Real-time to System Date/Time
- Make this paragraph shorter.
In V2:
Change the section to System Real-time and rephrase
From: Abner Chang <abner.chang@...>
In V3:
- Change System Real-time to System Date/Time
- Make this paragraph shorter.
In V2:
Change the section to System Real-time and rephrase
|
By
Abner Chang
·
#1239
·
|
|
Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] Update terminology and specification tables
If possible, it would seem to be better for the coming several months to have links go to the github pages from which one can then find the PDF and/or adoc of the latest draft of the document. Then
If possible, it would seem to be better for the coming several months to have links go to the github pages from which one can then find the PDF and/or adoc of the latest draft of the document. Then
|
By
Greg Favor
·
#1238
·
|