tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Next Platform HSC Meeting on Mon Jan 24th 2022 8AM PST

Hi All, The next platform HSC meeting is scheduled on Mon Jan 24th 2022 at 8AM PST. Here are the details: Agenda and minutes kept on the github

By Kumar Sankaran · #1657 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

Thank you for your reply

By merle w · #1656 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

That won't be required as the specification clearly states that "SBI extensions as whole are optional but they shall not be partially implemented. If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension

By atishp@... · #1655 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

3.4. Function: Probe SBI extension (FID #3) struct sbiret sbi_probe_extension(long extension_id); Returns 0 if the given SBI extension ID (EID) is not available, or an extension-specific

By merle w · #1654 ·

Re: [PATCH] Remove stoptime requirement

Hi Paul, Can you send a PR please? Regards Kumar

By Kumar Sankaran · #1653 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

Indeed. I'm sure we'll cross that bridge eventually (at which point ratification should be very smooth).

By andrew@... · #1652 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

Hi Andrew, I mostly agree with your suggestion considering the fact that we have very few (or none) RV32 Linux (or RichOS) capable systems. I would also like to correct my previous comment about the

By Anup Patel · #1651 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

Sure. Here is the proposed diff that removed all the references to RV32 in the specification. Is it a common practice to explicitly specify in the specification that only the RV64 version is ratified

By atishp@... · #1650 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

It's true that specific example is limited to those calls, but I'll re-emphase the "e.g." The RV32 variants have not gotten much road testing because there isn't much demand for them--which again

By andrew@... · #1649 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

HI Andrew, The RV32 physical address space limitation only impacts SBI RFENCE calls and SBI HSM calls. A RV32 system can still use these calls as long as their physical address space is within

By Anup Patel · #1648 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

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

By andrew@... · #1647 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

I think allowing implementation-defined nonzero rather than requiring it be 1 is OK, but I agree with your proposed wording change.

By andrew@... · #1646 ·

Re: Review request: New EFI_RISCV_BOOT_PROTOCOL

Hi Abner, We need to add this requirement in the platform spec for sure. I will send the patch once this is frozen. But I think we also need to update the UEFI section 2.3.7.1 since it

By Sunil V L · #1645 ·

Re: Review request: New EFI_RISCV_BOOT_PROTOCOL

Thanks. Updated as per your suggestion. https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-uefi/releases/download/0.3/EFI_RISCV_PROTOCOL-spec.pdf I will work with you, Heinrich and Abner to get an codefirst ECR

By Sunil V L · #1644 ·

Re: Review request: New EFI_RISCV_BOOT_PROTOCOL

Sounds good. One minor comment: "While there can be a solution using /chosen node in DT based systems to pass this information, a simple and common interface across DT and ACPI platforms is desired

By atishp@... · #1643 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

If that is the intention, the text should be changed to "Returns 0 if the given SBI extension ID (EID) is not available, or an implementation defined non-zero value if it is available". Although, if

By Jonathan Behrens <behrensj@...> · #1642 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

The description says "Returns 0 if the given SBI extension ID (EID) is not available, or an extension-specific non-zero value if it is available" The specification says it should be non-zero as the

By atishp@... · #1641 ·

Re: OS-A platform stoptime requirement

I just sent a patch. (The main reason I didn't do that sooner was that I'm not patch-savvy. I'm more familiar with pull requests which are used by all the other RISC-V specs but which are admittedly

By Paul Donahue · #1640 ·

[PATCH] Remove stoptime requirement

Signed-off-by: Paul Donahue <pdonahue@...> --- riscv-platform-spec.adoc | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/riscv-platform-spec.adoc b/riscv-platform-spec.adoc index

By Paul Donahue · #1639 ·

Re: Public review of Supervisor Binary Interface (SBI) Specification

If I understand correctly, per the description of `sbi_probe_extension`, each of the extensions are supposed to specify an "extension-specific non-zero value" to return if they are available. However,

By Jonathan Behrens <behrensj@...> · #1638 ·

201 - 220 of 1857

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms