The first three details belong to a profile specification rather than platform spec. Remove those so that it can be included in the profile. The last remaining one belongs to platform spec but must be

The platform and profile specification mean different things now. All the points specified in supervisor.adoc are already described in the new revamped platform spec. Remove these old specifications.

Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...> --- riscv-platform-spec.adoc | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) diff --git a/riscv-platform-spec.adoc b/riscv-platform-spe

The first three details belong to a profile specification rather than platform spec. Remove those so that it can be included in the profile. The last remaining one belongs to platform spec but must be

The platform and profile specification mean different things now. All the points specified in supervisor.adoc are already described in the new revamped platform spec. Remove these old specifications.

Greg had few suggestion to change this statement. "PCIe transactions that are marked with a No Snoop bit of zero and access memory.."

We have released SBI specification v0.3.0[1]. It's been month since the release candidate (v.0.3-rc1). There were only includes few typo fixes and license update patches after that. That's why, we thi

MCFG table was not referenced earlier. UC is not present in abbreviation section. Moreover, PMA + PBMT seems bit ambiguous to me. It wouldn't hurt to be more verbose here. same comment as above. /s/No

I think it will be good to provide additional clarification in the beginning about the number of interrupts/contexts. Something along the lines: The PLIC specification supports up-to 1024 interrupts a

Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...>

We have tagged the current SBI specification as a release candidate for v0.3[1]. It is tagged as v0.3-rc1 which includes few new extensions and cosmetic changes of the entire specification. Here is a

Thanks. Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...>

Hi Bin, Are you planning to send v2 for this patch or I can modify the text and merge?

Yes. I think it was not reviewed in the past. At least that's what I remember. If I am wrong about that, it's fine.

Agreed. The firmware code will still be executed while the priv mode is S-mode right ? Wouldn't that violate the priv spec ? That's what I am thinking. The only additional cost is just a "ecall and mr

Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...>

Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...>

IIRC, PLIC spec was never reviewed widely. As this group is more active now, tt would be good to send it as a separate patch so we can do a detailed review of that as well. I am just concerned about s

This one is more verbose but sounds better to me. May be we should just explicitly say that "all functions belonging to that extension must be implemented" similar to the below version.

All the above changes looks good. I have verified those in the OpenSBI/Linux kernel implementation as well. I will send out the patches soon. IMO, some additional clarification along the following lin