[RFC 1/6] dt-bindings: riscv: clarify what an unversioned extension means

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/05/2023 20:16, Conor Dooley wrote:
> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
> 
> C'est la vie, the spec folks reserve the ability to make incompatible
> changes between major versions of an extension. Their idea of backwards
> compatibility appears driven by the hardware perspective - it's
> backwards compatible if a later version is a subset of the existing
> extension. IOW, if you supported `x` in vN, you still support `x` in
> vN+1.
> However in software terms, code that was built for the vN's `x`
> extension may not work with the new definition.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org>

Best regards,
Krzysztof