tech-unixplatformspec@lists.riscv.org | [PATCH] Clarify that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Date Date 1 - 6 of 6

[PATCH] Clarify that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented

Bin Meng #1020 Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...> --- riscv-sbi.adoc \| 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/riscv-sbi.adoc b/riscv-sbi.adoc index 11c30c3..8696f97 100644 --- a/riscv-sbi.adoc +++ b/riscv-sbi.adoc @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. * Improved SBI introduction secion * Improved documentation of SBI hart state managment extension * Added suspend function to SBI hart state managment extension +* Clarified that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented === Version 0.2 @@ -51,6 +52,11 @@ abstraction for platform (or hypervisor) specific functionality. The design of the SBI follows the general RISC-V philosophy of having a small core along with a set of optional modular extensions. +SBI extensions as whole are optional but if a SBI <abc> extension compliant +with SBI v0.X spec is implemented then all functions of SBI <abc> extension +as defined in SBI v0.X are assumed to be present. Basically, a SBI extension +cannot be partially implemented. + The higher privilege software providing SBI interface to the supervisor-mode software is referred to as a SBI implemenation or Supervisor Execution Environment (SEE). A SBI implementation (or SEE) can be platform runtime -- 2.25.1
More All Messages By This Member
Heinrich Schuchardt #1022 a On 6/4/21 11:57 AM, Bin Meng wrote: Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...> --- riscv-sbi.adoc \| 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/riscv-sbi.adoc b/riscv-sbi.adoc index 11c30c3..8696f97 100644 --- a/riscv-sbi.adoc +++ b/riscv-sbi.adoc @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. * Improved SBI introduction secion * Improved documentation of SBI hart state managment extension * Added suspend function to SBI hart state managment extension +* Clarified that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented === Version 0.2 @@ -51,6 +52,11 @@ abstraction for platform (or hypervisor) specific functionality. The design of the SBI follows the general RISC-V philosophy of having a small core along with a set of optional modular extensions. +SBI extensions as whole are optional but if a SBI <abc> extension compliant %s/a SBI/an SBI/ (as you will pronounce SBI as as-bee-aye) +with SBI v0.X spec is implemented then all functions of SBI <abc> extension +as defined in SBI v0.X are assumed to be present. Basically, a SBI extension Can we do away with all the placeholders? How about: "SBI extensions as whole are optional but they shall not be partially implemented: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, it must be implemented in total and conform to the SBI version reported by sbi_get_spec_version()." Best regards Heinrich +cannot be partially implemented. + The higher privilege software providing SBI interface to the supervisor-mode software is referred to as a SBI implemenation or Supervisor Execution Environment (SEE). A SBI implementation (or SEE) can be platform runtime
More All Messages By This Member
Bin Meng #1023 Hi Heinrich, On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:13 PM Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@...> wrote: a On 6/4/21 11:57 AM, Bin Meng wrote: Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...> --- riscv-sbi.adoc \| 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/riscv-sbi.adoc b/riscv-sbi.adoc index 11c30c3..8696f97 100644 --- a/riscv-sbi.adoc +++ b/riscv-sbi.adoc @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. * Improved SBI introduction secion * Improved documentation of SBI hart state managment extension * Added suspend function to SBI hart state managment extension +* Clarified that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented === Version 0.2 @@ -51,6 +52,11 @@ abstraction for platform (or hypervisor) specific functionality. The design of the SBI follows the general RISC-V philosophy of having a small core along with a set of optional modular extensions. +SBI extensions as whole are optional but if a SBI <abc> extension compliant %s/a SBI/an SBI/ (as you will pronounce SBI as as-bee-aye) Sure. Will send a new patch to fix other places in the same file. +with SBI v0.X spec is implemented then all functions of SBI <abc> extension +as defined in SBI v0.X are assumed to be present. Basically, a SBI extension Can we do away with all the placeholders? How about: "SBI extensions as whole are optional but they shall not be partially implemented: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, it must be implemented in total and conform to the SBI version reported by sbi_get_spec_version()." How about: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, all functions that conform to the SBI version reported by sbi_get_spec_version() must be implemented. Regards, Bin
More All Messages By This Member
atishp@... #1025 On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 20:48 +0800, Bin Meng wrote: Hi Heinrich, On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:13 PM Heinrich Schuchardt < xypron.glpk@...> wrote: a On 6/4/21 11:57 AM, Bin Meng wrote: Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...> --- riscv-sbi.adoc \| 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/riscv-sbi.adoc b/riscv-sbi.adoc index 11c30c3..8696f97 100644 --- a/riscv-sbi.adoc +++ b/riscv-sbi.adoc @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. * Improved SBI introduction secion * Improved documentation of SBI hart state managment extension * Added suspend function to SBI hart state managment extension +* Clarified that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented === Version 0.2 @@ -51,6 +52,11 @@ abstraction for platform (or hypervisor) specific functionality. The design of the SBI follows the general RISC-V philosophy of having a small core along with a set of optional modular extensions. +SBI extensions as whole are optional but if a SBI <abc> extension compliant %s/a SBI/an SBI/ (as you will pronounce SBI as as-bee-aye) Sure. Will send a new patch to fix other places in the same file. +with SBI v0.X spec is implemented then all functions of SBI <abc> extension +as defined in SBI v0.X are assumed to be present. Basically, a SBI extension Can we do away with all the placeholders? How about: "SBI extensions as whole are optional but they shall not be partially implemented: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, it must be implemented in total and conform to the SBI version reported by sbi_get_spec_version()." 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. How about: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, all functions that conform to the SBI version reported by sbi_get_spec_version() must be implemented. Regards, Bin -- Regards, Atish
More All Messages By This Member
atishp@... #1037 On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 19:05 +0000, Atish Patra wrote: On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 20:48 +0800, Bin Meng wrote: Hi Heinrich, On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:13 PM Heinrich Schuchardt < xypron.glpk@...> wrote: a On 6/4/21 11:57 AM, Bin Meng wrote: Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...> --- riscv-sbi.adoc \| 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/riscv-sbi.adoc b/riscv-sbi.adoc index 11c30c3..8696f97 100644 --- a/riscv-sbi.adoc +++ b/riscv-sbi.adoc @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. * Improved SBI introduction secion * Improved documentation of SBI hart state managment extension * Added suspend function to SBI hart state managment extension +* Clarified that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented === Version 0.2 @@ -51,6 +52,11 @@ abstraction for platform (or hypervisor) specific functionality. The design of the SBI follows the general RISC-V philosophy of having a small core along with a set of optional modular extensions. +SBI extensions as whole are optional but if a SBI <abc> extension compliant %s/a SBI/an SBI/ (as you will pronounce SBI as as-bee-aye) Sure. Will send a new patch to fix other places in the same file. +with SBI v0.X spec is implemented then all functions of SBI <abc> extension +as defined in SBI v0.X are assumed to be present. Basically, a SBI extension Can we do away with all the placeholders? How about: "SBI extensions as whole are optional but they shall not be partially implemented: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, it must be implemented in total and conform to the SBI version reported by sbi_get_spec_version()." 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. Hi Bin, Are you planning to send v2 for this patch or I can modify the text and merge? How about: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, all functions that conform to the SBI version reported by sbi_get_spec_version() must be implemented. Regards, Bin -- Regards, Atish -- Regards, Atish
More All Messages By This Member
Bin Meng #1039 Hi Atish, On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:09 AM Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@...> wrote: On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 19:05 +0000, Atish Patra wrote: On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 20:48 +0800, Bin Meng wrote: Hi Heinrich, On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:13 PM Heinrich Schuchardt < xypron.glpk@...> wrote: a On 6/4/21 11:57 AM, Bin Meng wrote: Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...> --- riscv-sbi.adoc \| 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/riscv-sbi.adoc b/riscv-sbi.adoc index 11c30c3..8696f97 100644 --- a/riscv-sbi.adoc +++ b/riscv-sbi.adoc @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. * Improved SBI introduction secion * Improved documentation of SBI hart state managment extension * Added suspend function to SBI hart state managment extension +* Clarified that a SBI extension cannot be partially implemented === Version 0.2 @@ -51,6 +52,11 @@ abstraction for platform (or hypervisor) specific functionality. The design of the SBI follows the general RISC-V philosophy of having a small core along with a set of optional modular extensions. +SBI extensions as whole are optional but if a SBI <abc> extension compliant %s/a SBI/an SBI/ (as you will pronounce SBI as as-bee-aye) Sure. Will send a new patch to fix other places in the same file. +with SBI v0.X spec is implemented then all functions of SBI <abc> extension +as defined in SBI v0.X are assumed to be present. Basically, a SBI extension Can we do away with all the placeholders? How about: "SBI extensions as whole are optional but they shall not be partially implemented: If sbi_probe_extension() signals that an extension is available, it must be implemented in total and conform to the SBI version reported by sbi_get_spec_version()." 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. Hi Bin, Are you planning to send v2 for this patch or I can modify the text and merge? Okay, I will send v2. Regards, Bin
More All Messages By This Member

1 - 6 of 6

1

Previous Topic Next Topic

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms