[PATCH -fixes v2 2/4] dt-bindings: riscv: Add ratified privileged ISA versions
Conor Dooley
conor at kernel.org
Tue Feb 13 09:07:29 PST 2024
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:03:46PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 07:37:33PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > The baseline for the RISC-V privileged ISA is version 1.10. Using
> > features from newer versions of the privileged ISA requires the
> > supported version to be reported by platform firmware, either in the ISA
> > string (where the binding already accepts version numbers) or in the
> > riscv,isa-extensions property. So far two newer versions are ratified.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland at sifive.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - New patch for v2
> >
> > .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > index 63d81dc895e5..7faf22df01af 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > @@ -121,6 +121,16 @@ properties:
> > version of the privileged ISA specification.
> >
> > # multi-letter extensions, sorted alphanumerically
>
> > + - const: sm1p11
>
> Why are we beholden to this "1p11" format of RVI's? We have free choice
> of characters here, what's stopping us using "machine-v1.11", for
> example?
We could also choose to communicate this using a specific property, but
I have not really thought that one through yet.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20240213/209e326b/attachment.sig>
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list