[RFC PATCH 0/1] About adding new Z extensions in ISA realization

[Ruinland Tsai]

Dear all,
I am wondering about what is the policy on adding new multilettered
extensions into the ISA realization mechanism ?

Currently we have plenty ratified exntensions left un-added, and some
of them are already being used frequently, such as the B extension
family - - namely, the zba, zbb, zbc, and zbs.

Being unsure about whether I have done it in the right way, hence I
wrote this RFC for adding those extensions.

Also, just as I have inquired on the list before, what about the vendor
extensions ? If a vendor wants to submit a vendor extensions without
reavealing the detailed sepcs, what will be examined ?

Cordially yours,
Ruinland

Ruinland Tsai (1):
  arch/riscv : Add support for Zba/Zbb/Zbc/Zbs ext in ISA realization

 arch/riscv/Kconfig             | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/riscv/Makefile            |  6 ++++++
 arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h |  4 ++++
 arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c        |  4 ++++
 arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c |  4 ++++
 5 files changed, 42 insertions(+)

-- 
2.34.1