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

[Conor Dooley]

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/

> +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?

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.