On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 09:56:19PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Implementor does appear to be a word, but it's not very common. > > Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> The overlords would probably rather this email got the credit but doesn't really matter for S-b tags. Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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 >
