Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for SBI version to 0.2

2019-09-16 Thread Palmer Dabbelt
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 23:54:46 PDT (-0700), Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:54:27AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:38 AM h...@infradead.org wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:13:25PM +, Atish Patra wrote: > > If I understood you clearly, you want

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for SBI version to 0.2

2019-09-15 Thread h...@infradead.org
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:54:27AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:38 AM h...@infradead.org wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:13:25PM +, Atish Patra wrote: > > > If I understood you clearly, you want to call it legacy in the spec and > > > just say v0.1 extensio

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for SBI version to 0.2

2019-09-03 Thread h...@infradead.org
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:13:25PM +, Atish Patra wrote: > If I understood you clearly, you want to call it legacy in the spec and > just say v0.1 extensions. > > The whole idea of marking them as legacy extensions to indicate that it > would be obsolete in the future. > > But I am not too wo

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for SBI version to 0.2

2019-08-30 Thread Atish Patra
On Thu, 2019-08-29 at 03:59 -0700, h...@infradead.org wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:19:42PM +, Atish Patra wrote: > > I did not understand this part. All the legacy SBI calls are > > defined as > > a separate extension ID not single extension. How did it break the > > backward compatibili

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for SBI version to 0.2

2019-08-29 Thread h...@infradead.org
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:19:42PM +, Atish Patra wrote: > I did not understand this part. All the legacy SBI calls are defined as > a separate extension ID not single extension. How did it break the > backward compatibility ? Yes, sorry I mistead this. The way is is defined is rather non-int

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for SBI version to 0.2

2019-08-27 Thread Atish Patra
On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 07:46 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 04:32:54PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > This patch series aims to add support for SBI specification version > > v0.2. It doesn't break compatibility with any v0.1 implementation. > > Internally, all the v0.1 call

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for SBI version to 0.2

2019-08-27 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 04:32:54PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > This patch series aims to add support for SBI specification version > v0.2. It doesn't break compatibility with any v0.1 implementation. > Internally, all the v0.1 calls are just renamed to legacy to be in > sync with specification [1].

[RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for SBI version to 0.2

2019-08-26 Thread Atish Patra
This patch series aims to add support for SBI specification version v0.2. It doesn't break compatibility with any v0.1 implementation. Internally, all the v0.1 calls are just renamed to legacy to be in sync with specification [1]. The patches for v0.2 support in OpenSBI are available at http://lis