On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 3:35 PM Jukka Laitinen <jukka.laiti...@iki.fi> wrote:
> Hi, > > > As an another example, we would very much like to bring in > CONFIG_BUILD_KERNEL support for RISC-V for NuttX, as we have worked hard > on this for some time, and have it working. Now, even when this work it > is only additions, not breaking anything for FLAT_BUILD users, Yes, it doesn't break FLAT_BUILD, but doesn't mean KERNEL design or code is perfect, that's why the interesting people can give the comment. > is stuck > in endless debate where half of the comments show that the reviewer > doesn't know the RISC-V ISA thoroughly, Sorry, I give you this impression, but I have worked on RiSCV since 2018:(. > and is referring to how things > are done in ARM world. And the other half is largely useless style > nitpicking. > I think the most debate is about how S-mode talks with M-mode in this PR. The module design and standard compliant is always NuttX core value and highlight in: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/blob/master/INVIOLABLES.md Since OpenSBI is adopted by many OS to interact with M-mode firmware: https://github.com/riscv-software-src/opensbi It's always good to follow the best practice and what I insist in this PR: we can implement a minimal subset of OpenSBI to support S-mode NuttX, but don't invent a private interface since M-mode firmware mayn't run NuttX at all.
