Hi Conor,
Thanks for the quick glance!
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 11:39 AM <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 06/09/2022 11:21, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > index 2a0ef738695e..10a7c855d125 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ enum sbi_ext_id {
> >
> > /* Vendor extensions must lie within this range */
> > SBI_EXT_VENDOR_START = 0x09000000,
> > + SBI_EXT_ANDES = 0x0900031E,
> > SBI_EXT_VENDOR_END = 0x09FFFFFF,
> > };
>
> Everything else aside, I am very interested in what's happening
> here. I'll take a proper look through things later, but for now:
>
> For PolarFire SoC we have an InterHart Communication SBI EXT that
> would would like to upstream support for. We are not aiming to put
> the driver itself in arch/riscv - it's just a mailbox driver, but
> I would like to use sbi.h for defining the vendor id etc.
>
sbi.h seems appropriate for now, unless the maintainers have other ideas.
> I am not sure how this all aligns with:
> > We’ll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
> > specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being
> > “Frozen” or “Ratified” by the RISC-V Foundation. (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
> > 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
> > performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific
> > RISC-V extensions, we’ll only to accept patches for extensions that
> > have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation.
> > (Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
> > containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.)
>
> Which is in: https://docs.kernel.org/riscv/patch-acceptance.html
>
I had completely missed this, thanks for pointing it out.
> It is unclear to me whether that is just for ISA extensions or if that
> covers SBI extensions too. At least for us, since we don't touch arch
> code there is relatively little friction & there's no concerns about
> reducing the portability of a kernel since it is just a regular old
> driver.
>
> I was planning on cornering some people *cough* Palmer *cough* at
> LPC and asking him what his thoughts were there.
>
I too will be attending the LPC (virtually though) and would like to
attend/chat on this topic. Please keep me posted.
> FWIW this is what we have been doing:
> https://github.com/linux4microchip/linux/blob/linux-5.15-mchp/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-miv-ihc.c#L27
>
>From the looks of it it's on similar lines ;)
> The IP itself has not stabilised yet, so we have not sent any patches
> yet, but we do intend doing so...
>
I see..
> But yea, I'll take a properly look at what you're doing here soonTM,
> although at this point it may be the other side of LPC.
>
Thanks.
> btw, where can I get my hands on your hardware?
>
I shall share the link as soon as it's available.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
