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].