I joined the group recently and not sure that I have all the context yet for what the group's charter and current scope are. However, I was exchanging email with Andrew Waterman about RV32 cores and

Hi all, I would add a few more (somewhat related) topics: - Minimum set of "standard" PMA combinations, e.g. "Normal" and "Device" types in ARM or "WB" and "UC" types in x86 - Maybe a standard PMA

As discussed, RV64GC should be the minimum required extensions to boot Linux. Sure. I think most of the above should be specified in the specification. I am hoping somebody will send a PR now :-):-).

Yeah. I would love to allow anybody (RISC-V foundation member or not) to jump into the discussions. However, foundation has strict rules on who can participate in the working group meetings. That's

Atish, Could I circulate WebEx meeting information to people outside RISC-V Foundation? In particular I would like to see if we could get engineers from Red Hat, SUSE and Canonical to join. Red Hat

The Unix spec has so far (AFAIUI) not required anything about DRAM starting address as long as it's stated in the DT. Esperanto Tech's Maxion cannot have DRAM below 4 GB as that memory space is

For boot loader behavior specification, the plan is to follow EBBR for embedded devices. Currently, there are ongoing efforts to support UEFI in Linux kernel and EDK2 for RISC-V. Once, all the changes

Is a specification for bootloader behavior considered in scope for the platform spec? Describing the initial register state and boot address alignment suggests that it is, but there's also more that

It left the station a couple years ago, so don’t feel like you barely missed it. I’ve only personally used Debian, but that’s a “yes”. I would separate ABI from platform here. User-visible

/me puts Fedora/RISCV distro hat on Just to clarify the base will continue to be RV64GC and any other extension would be supported by optimized binaries (e.g. libraries compiled with extra extensions

I completely agree. So maybe the initial "level 1" platform spec is just RV64GC. We would have liked to have the basic Zb* extensions included, but if the train has left the station for current

Since standard binary distributions don’t cope well with extensions being rolled out at a rapid clip, my thinking is that we should batch extensions together and roll them out periodically, say,

Any requirement for some amount of DRAM below 4G, and located whether? Should the first 4KB page (at system address 0x0) be covered by a fixed "empty" PMA region? (This is also convenient for mapping

One additional topic: All the various architecture specs have little to lots of optional features or parameters that can be implementation-specific. Some of these probably want to have minimum

Hi All, I would like to start a thread to discuss the topics that should go into the unix platform specification apart from SBI & PLIC. SBI specification is already tagged as v0.2 & PLIC specification

Unix platform working group meeting (06/09 8AM PST) @ Tue June 09, 2020 8am - 9am (PST) When: Tuesday, 9 June 2020 8:00am to 9:00am (UTC-07:00) America/Los

wrote: Looks good to me. Merged to master. -- Regards, Atish

<daniel.schaefer@...> wrote: Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@...>

Signed-off-by: Daniel Schaefer <daniel.schaefer@...> --- README.adoc | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) create mode 100644 README.adoc diff --git a/README.adoc

From: Daniel Schaefer <git@...> Hi, I had opened a PR to SBI for adding a README: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-sbi-doc/pull/50 And now I'm also posting it here for people who might