Date
1 - 3 of 3
[RISC-V] [tech-aia] [RISC-V] [tech-unixplatformspec] Review request for ACPI ECRs
Aaron Durbin
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 8:17 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@...> wrote: Hi All, I don't think we should submit this one until we settle on how we convey behaviors outside of an ISA string. I suspect that will change so we should anticipate that. Right now we have ISA string plus CMO parameters as specific RHCT Nodes. Are we concerned about timing on adoption to push this in its current form? I ask because I'd rather not have this set in stone only for us to quickly come back and say "stop using these fields. we have a new node/mechanism to convey this information". What do you think? I brought up this topic in the TSC meeting this week as I indicated I would. I need to work with some others to formalize the direction, but that's going to take a little more time.
Aside from maybe wordsmithing a little more for clarity purposes (based on commentary) I think this one seems fine from my standpoint.
|
|
Sunil V L
Hi Aaron,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 09:16:21AM -0600, Aaron Durbin wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 8:17 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@...> wrote:I was under the impression that it is decided not to use theHi All, extension names mentioned in profile spec. Sorry I didn't know you are still working with TSC to conclude on this. In that case, let's remove the CMO structure from the RHCT and submit the ECR. CMO structure is not really mandatory for OS. Right. My preference is, to keep sending multiple revisions of the ECRs with incremental changes, while making sure we don't obsolete things fairly quickly as you mentioned. I think removing CMO strucutre helps us to take care of both requirements. When you get clarity from TSC, we can add in next revision. What do you think? Thanks Sunil
|
|
Aaron Durbin
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:16 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@...> wrote: Hi Aaron, Sounds good. As long as we don't annoy anyone with a stream ECR updates to the same table I think that's a fine approach.
|
|