On 08/05/2023 20:16, Conor Dooley wrote: > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Krzysztof
