On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:46:26AM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 07:14:26PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:44:16AM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 02:41:05PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:37:21PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 4:58 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:34:52PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> > > > > > > Make an entry for cfi extensions in extensions.yaml.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml | 10 ++++++++++
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > > > index 63d81dc895e5..45b87ad6cc1c 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > > > > > > @@ -317,6 +317,16 @@ properties:
> > > > > > > The standard Zicboz extension for cache-block zeroing as ratified
> > > > > > > in commit 3dd606f ("Create cmobase-v1.0.pdf") of riscv-CMOs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + - const: zicfilp
> > > > > > > + description:
> > > > > > > + The standard Zicfilp extension for enforcing forward edge control-flow
> > > > > > > + integrity in commit 3a20dc9 of riscv-cfi and is in public review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does in public review mean the commit sha is going to change?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Less likely. Next step after public review is to gather comments from
> > > > > public review.
> > > > > If something is really pressing and needs to be addressed, then yes
> > > > > this will change.
> > > > > Else this gets ratified as it is.
> > > >
> > > > If the commit sha can change, then it is useless. What's the guarantee
> > > > someone is going to remember to update it if it changes?
> > >
> > > Sorry for late reply.
> > >
> > > I was following existing wordings and patterns for messaging in this file.
> > > You would rather have me remove sha and only mention that spec is in public
> > > review?
> >
> > Nope, having a commit sha is desired. None of this is mergeable until at
> > least the spec becomes frozen, so the sha can be updated at that point
> > to the freeze state - or better yet to the ratified state. Being in
> > public review is not sufficient.
>
> Spec is frozen.
> As per RVI spec lifecycle, spec freeze is a prior step to public review.
> Public review concluded on 25th April
> https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-ss-lp-cfi/message/91
>
> Next step is ratification whenever board meets.
Ah, I did the "silly" thing of looking on the RVI website at extension
status (because I never know the order of things) and these two
extensions were marked on there as being in the inception phase, so I
incorrectly assumed that "public review" came before freeze.
Freeze is the standard that we have been applying so far, but if
ratification is imminent, and nothing has changed in the review period,
then it seems sane to just pick the freeze point for the definition.
Cheers,
Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
