5 ms·

I think the argument about config-string has been won. The last post mentioning them from the team working on the privileged spec draft seemed to indicate a tac

by asb 10y ago

I think the argument about config-string has been won. The last post mentioning them from the team working on the privileged spec draft seemed to indicate a tactical retreat on the issue. I actually thought the whole SBI thing might cause more popcorn when it comes to kernel upstreaming, though it has been pointed out to me that it's not conceptually that different to Xen hypercalls.

bonzini 10y ago
Do you have a pointer? There are other things in the 1.9 privileged spec that are messy, but I hope that the next version has relatively large changes. That said, the development and discussion style is not very open, and that's a pity (and the justification for not releasing the source of the spec is lame at best).
- asb 10y ago
  https://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/lowrisc-dev-lists.lowrisc.org/2016-August/000545.html https://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/lowrisc-dev-list... This was cross-posted on RISC-V sw-dev, but Google Groups is failing to load for me right now.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    Nice. I don't think the SBI is going to be a problem, it's similar to PowerPC RTAS for example.
- amluto 10y ago
  Do they want feedback? On a very quick reading, it seems like it would be really nice if synchronous exceptions recorded the faulting opcode. x86 doesn't do this (except sort-of when using VM extensions), and it's annoying).
  - rwmj 10y ago
    There is an ISA-dev mailing list where this is discussed (unfortunately a Google Group but you can subscribe using an email address): https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!forum/isa-dev https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!forum/i... Subscribe links here: https://riscv.org/mailing-lists/ https://riscv.org/mailing-lists/ I'm not involved in the upstream project or ISA dev, but I would definitely welcome having heavyweight kernel developers like yourself contribute, because ultimately it will ensure that the hardware is practical. We're probably 1-2 years away from having lots of RISC-V devkits running Linux, and it'd be nice if they ran Linux really well.

by asb 10y ago

bonzini 10y ago

Do you have a pointer? There are other things in the 1.9 privileged spec that are messy, but I hope that the next version has relatively large changes. That said, the development and discussion style is not very open, and that's a pity (and the justification for not releasing the source of the spec is lame at best).

asb 10y ago
https://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/lowrisc-dev-lists.lowrisc.org/2016-August/000545.html https://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/lowrisc-dev-list... This was cross-posted on RISC-V sw-dev, but Google Groups is failing to load for me right now.
- bonzini 10y ago
  Nice. I don't think the SBI is going to be a problem, it's similar to PowerPC RTAS for example.
amluto 10y ago
Do they want feedback? On a very quick reading, it seems like it would be really nice if synchronous exceptions recorded the faulting opcode. x86 doesn't do this (except sort-of when using VM extensions), and it's annoying).
- rwmj 10y ago
  There is an ISA-dev mailing list where this is discussed (unfortunately a Google Group but you can subscribe using an email address): https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!forum/isa-dev https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!forum/i... Subscribe links here: https://riscv.org/mailing-lists/ https://riscv.org/mailing-lists/ I'm not involved in the upstream project or ISA dev, but I would definitely welcome having heavyweight kernel developers like yourself contribute, because ultimately it will ensure that the hardware is practical. We're probably 1-2 years away from having lots of RISC-V devkits running Linux, and it'd be nice if they ran Linux really well.