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

[Deepak Gupta]

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 09:32:49PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:46:26AM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
>> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 07:14:26PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:44:16AM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
>> > > 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?
>> >
>> > Nope, having a commit sha is desired. None of this is mergeable until at
>> > least the spec becomes frozen, so the sha can be updated at that point
>> > to the freeze state - or better yet to the ratified state. Being in
>> > public review is not sufficient.
>>
>> Spec is frozen.
>> As per RVI spec lifecycle, spec freeze is a prior step to public review.
>> Public review concluded on 25th April
>> https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-ss-lp-cfi/message/91
>>
>> Next step is ratification whenever board meets.
>
>Ah, I did the "silly" thing of looking on the RVI website at extension
>status (because I never know the order of things) and these two
>extensions were marked on there as being in the inception phase, so I
>incorrectly assumed that "public review" came before freeze.
>Freeze is the standard that we have been applying so far, but if
>ratification is imminent, and nothing has changed in the review period,
>then it seems sane to just pick the freeze point for the definition.

Yeah I don't think wiki is that regularly updated.
But take a look at Ratification-Ready list of specs here
https://wiki.riscv.org/display/HOME/RISC-V+Specification+Status

>
>Cheers,
>Conor.