Messages in this thread | | | From | Heiko Stübner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] Expose the isa-string via the AT_BASE_PLATFORM aux vector | Date | Wed, 03 May 2023 12:30:36 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
Am Dienstag, 2. Mai 2023, 19:15:29 CEST schrieb Palmer Dabbelt: > On Tue, 02 May 2023 02:13:10 PDT (-0700), philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu wrote: > > On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 09:58, Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu> writes: > >> > >> > It is a pity that the current interface was designed without involving > >> > RVI (and that I had to ask my team to put together a patch set for > >> > further discussion, given that none of the other major vendors in RVI > >> > stepped forward). I guarantee that plenty of reviewers would have > >> > highlighted that a central registry (even if it is just a kernel > >> > header) should be avoided. > >> > >> Are you claiming that the hwprobe work was not done in the open, but > >> secretly merged? That is not only incorrect, but rude to upstream RISC-V > >> Linux developers. I suggest you review how you interact with upstream > >> kernel work. > > > > Please don't put words into my mouth... > > > > I was merely pointing out that there was no engagement by the RVI > > member companies (in regard to this mechanism) within RVI, which would > > have prevented Jessica's issue. > > This would have also helped to address the concerns on vendor-defined > > extensions. > > > > Also who do you refer to when you say "how _you_ interact"? If it is > > RVI that you refer to: it doesn't interact with upstream work > > directly, as it doesn't own any engineering resources. > > RVI provides a forum for member companies to come to an > > understanding/design and then have the member companies perform the > > work and take it upstream. > > I'm not even sure what you're looking for here: if RVI doesn't want to > work upstream, then complaining that RVI isn't part of upstream > discussions is pretty pointless. > > >> Why didn't RVI get involved in the review of the series? The expectation > >> cannot be that all open source projects go to RVI, but rather the other > >> way around. > > > > That is exactly the point I was making and which you seem to miss: RVI > > does not own any engineering resources and depends solely on its > > member companies to project into open source projects. > > > >> Take a look at commit ea3de9ce8aa2 ("RISC-V: Add a syscall for HW > >> probing"). Your team was very much involved in the review. > > > > I am aware, as I had reviewed and commented on these are well. > > And my only request (was and) is that we need to figure out a way to > > efficiently deal with vendor-defined extensions. > > Maybe you should go talk to you team, then? Handling vendor extensions > via hwprobe has been discussed, sounds like you're confused again.
I too have this vague memory of us talking about vendor extensions, but my memory is really bad for stuff like this, so I spent the morning combing through all the hwprobe iterations looking for it, but so far have only found
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALs-HstoeoTWjTEZrLWouCgwq0t3tDB6uL=tB68RJDs1ub4Frw@mail.gmail.com/
I'm most likely just blind, but does someone have another pointer?
Thanks Heiko
| |