From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Implementor does appear to be a word, but it's not very common. Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index 9fed6b318b49..89c7d8abd4bb 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or ECR. (Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.) -Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create +Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementers to create their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V Foundation. To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential @@ -38,5 +38,5 @@ RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that either: for which a timeline for availability has been made public. Hardware that does not meet its published timelines may have support -removed. (Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel +removed. (Implementers, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.) -- 2.38.0
