Date
1 - 4 of 4
[RISC-V] [software] Al Stone approved as UNIX Platform TG Chair
atishp@...
On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 17:01 -0600, Al Stone wrote:
to first come up with subset of specifications (SBI, PLIC) under unix
platform specification. We have SBI v0.2 specification and draft PLIC
spec available now. I think it's time that it should be revised to
include more details and vision that aligns with a platform spec.
Regards,
Atish
On 20 Aug 2020 14:12, Arun Thomas wrote:yes. When the group was proposed (almost 18 months back), the idea wasHi all,Thanks. I think :).
The TSC has approved Al Stone as UNIX Platform Task Group Chair
just in time for today’s meeting. Congrats, Al. It’s great to have
you on board.
Best,
Arun
As a very first step, does there currently exist an approved charter
and/or plan for the UNIX platform task group?
There's a very brief statement in the member's area of riscv.org:
Charter: manage the UNIX-class platform specification. This working
group will start by defining a subset of this platform specification
that both allows compatibility with existing implementations
and extensibility for the future needs.
This seems a bit too brief, and maybe not much of a plan.
to first come up with subset of specifications (SBI, PLIC) under unix
platform specification. We have SBI v0.2 specification and draft PLIC
spec available now. I think it's time that it should be revised to
include more details and vision that aligns with a platform spec.
Following--
on with our conversation during the last meeting, do we need to write
something up and get it agreed to, at least amongst ourselves?
Or did I just not look in the right place?
Regards,
Atish
I think it is supposed to be in Groups.IO The description in the front page there is sparse:
Remember from our meeting we'd like to revise the Platform group to include but not limited to the following topics even if you don't get to some of them right away:
- other OSs (maybe the name must change to Platform)
- Multi-processing (on and off chip)
- Virtual machines and Hypervisors
- Jits
- IOMMU, busses
- DMA
- SBI
- distro outreach and coordination
- overlays
- bootloaders
- Interrupt and Exception Vectors and handlers
- Virtual memory and memory model
So everything running in or tightly couples with code below U and HU modes.
Items may have corresponding teams in the PRIV group. It is ok to say that another group handles the Platform portions but you should make sure to provide oversight and representation (I don't know if it is a good example but virtual memory may fall here) and document that somewhere.
You can also choose to say there is nothing to do (but please document that somewhere). As said before you can choose to do something later but please develop a list and publish it on groups.io or github or the CTO drive on google (stephano and I can help on location and format)
When you arrive at a new Charter please send it to TSC. To my knowledge we don't currently have a process for approving Charter revisions but I will find out what is expected.
Thanks
Mark
Arun Thomas
On 8/20/20, 7:02 PM, "Al Stone" <ahs3@...> wrote:
That is the current Platform TG charter, but you can certainly revise it, add more detail, and broaden the scope. You can also roll out your own roadmap for future Platform work.
Best,
Arun
________________________________
Notice: This email and any attachments may contain proprietary (Draper non-public) and/or export-controlled information of Draper. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and immediately destroy all copies of this email.
________________________________
As a very first step, does there currently exist an approved charterHi Al,
and/or plan for the UNIX platform task group?
There's a very brief statement in the member's area of riscv.org:
Charter: manage the UNIX-class platform specification. This working
group will start by defining a subset of this platform specification
that both allows compatibility with existing implementations
and extensibility for the future needs.
This seems a bit too brief, and maybe not much of a plan. Following
on with our conversation during the last meeting, do we need to write
something up and get it agreed to, at least amongst ourselves?
That is the current Platform TG charter, but you can certainly revise it, add more detail, and broaden the scope. You can also roll out your own roadmap for future Platform work.
Best,
Arun
________________________________
Notice: This email and any attachments may contain proprietary (Draper non-public) and/or export-controlled information of Draper. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and immediately destroy all copies of this email.
________________________________
Al Stone
On 20 Aug 2020 14:12, Arun Thomas wrote:
As a very first step, does there currently exist an approved charter
and/or plan for the UNIX platform task group?
There's a very brief statement in the member's area of riscv.org:
Charter: manage the UNIX-class platform specification. This working
group will start by defining a subset of this platform specification
that both allows compatibility with existing implementations
and extensibility for the future needs.
This seems a bit too brief, and maybe not much of a plan. Following
on with our conversation during the last meeting, do we need to write
something up and get it agreed to, at least amongst ourselves?
Or did I just not look in the right place?
--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@...
-----------------------------------
Hi all,Thanks. I think :).
The TSC has approved Al Stone as UNIX Platform Task Group Chair just in time for today’s meeting. Congrats, Al. It’s great to have you on board.
Best,
Arun
As a very first step, does there currently exist an approved charter
and/or plan for the UNIX platform task group?
There's a very brief statement in the member's area of riscv.org:
Charter: manage the UNIX-class platform specification. This working
group will start by defining a subset of this platform specification
that both allows compatibility with existing implementations
and extensibility for the future needs.
This seems a bit too brief, and maybe not much of a plan. Following
on with our conversation during the last meeting, do we need to write
something up and get it agreed to, at least amongst ourselves?
Or did I just not look in the right place?
--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@...
-----------------------------------