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

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:34:07 PDT (-0700), atishp at atishpatra.org wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 7:31 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at rivosinc.com> 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
>> -"Frozen" or "Ratified" by the RISC-V Foundation.  (Developers may, of
>> -course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that contain code for
>> -any draft extensions that they wish.)
>> +unlikely to make incompatible changes in the future.  For
>> +specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or
>> +"Ratified", for the UEFI specifications this means a published ECR.
>
> It would be good to explicitly mention "UEFI forum specifications"
> or
> UEFI/ACPI specifications.

Ya, "UEFI" is definately wrong.  I went with "UEFI forum 
specifications", I think that's likely the most accurate.

>
>> +(Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that
>> +contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.)
>>
>>  Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create
>>  their own custom extensions.  These custom extensions aren't required
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-riscv mailing list
>> linux-riscv at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
>
> Other than that, LGTM
>
> Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atishp at rivosinc.com>