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

[Deepak Gupta]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 02:41:05PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>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?

Sorry for late reply.

I was following existing wordings and patterns for messaging in this file.
You would rather have me remove sha and only mention that spec is in public
review?

>
>Rob