[PATCH v3 04/29] riscv: zicfilp / zicfiss in dt-bindings (extensions.yaml)

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:37:21PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:58 AM Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:34:52PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> > > Make an entry for cfi extensions in extensions.yaml.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug at rivosinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml          | 10 ++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > index 63d81dc895e5..45b87ad6cc1c 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > @@ -317,6 +317,16 @@ properties:
> > >              The standard Zicboz extension for cache-block zeroing as ratified
> > >              in commit 3dd606f ("Create cmobase-v1.0.pdf") of riscv-CMOs.
> > >
> > > +        - const: zicfilp
> > > +          description:
> > > +            The standard Zicfilp extension for enforcing forward edge control-flow
> > > +            integrity in commit 3a20dc9 of riscv-cfi and is in public review.
> >
> > Does in public review mean the commit sha is going to change?
> >
> 
> Less likely. Next step after public review is to gather comments from
> public review.
> If something is really pressing and needs to be addressed, then yes
> this will change.
> Else this gets ratified as it is.

If the commit sha can change, then it is useless. What's the guarantee 
someone is going to remember to update it if it changes?

Rob