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

[Palmer Dabbelt]

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.
+(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