[PATCH 3/3] Documentation: RISC-V: Mention the UEFI Standards

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 10:49:08 PDT (-0700), Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 07:01:41AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> The current patch acceptance policy requires that specifications are
>> approved by the RISC-V foundation, but we rely on external
>> specifications as well.  This explicitly calls out the UEFI
>> specifications that we're starting to depend on.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at rivosinc.com>
>> ---
>> This also came up during the Plumbers BoF.  The other discussed options
>> were to wait for an ACPI/UEFI specification to be published or to just
>> not wait at all, but this middle ground matches how we handle the RISC-V
>> specifications and it seems like there was broad agreement on it.
>>
>> As usual with policy stuff I'll wait a bit for others to have a chance
>> to chime in, but I think the wording on this one is at least easier to
>> reason about than some of the others.
>> ---
>>  Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 8 +++++---
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
>> index 8087718556da..08cb92324eaf 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
>> @@ -20,9 +20,11 @@ Submit Checklist Addendum
>>  -------------------------
>>  We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
>>  specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being
>
>> +unlikely to make incompatible changes in the future.  For
>
> Nit, but the wording here is awkward since it sounds like the module or
> extension is the "actor". How about:
> s/make incompatible changes/be incompatibly changed/

Makes sense, it's in the v2.

>> +specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or
>> +"Ratified", for the UEFI specifications this means a published ECR.
>> +(Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that
>> +contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.)
>
> Could we just drop the brackets from this sentence?

IMO we should keep it, there was some confusion about how kernel trees 
work when we were at Plumbers.

>
> Either way, policy wise/idealogically this again looks good to me, so
> with or without the wording changed:
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
>
>>  Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create
>>  their own custom extensions.  These custom extensions aren't required
>
> Thanks,
> Conor.