Re: [PATCH 0/4] Expose the isa-string via the AT_BASE_PLATFORM aux vector

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Tue, 02 May 2023 02:13:10 PDT (-0700), philipp.tomsich@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 09:58, Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > It is a pity that the current interface was designed without involving
> > > RVI (and that I had to ask my team to put together a patch set for
> > > further discussion, given that none of the other major vendors in RVI
> > > stepped forward).  I guarantee that plenty of reviewers would have
> > > highlighted that a central registry (even if it is just a kernel
> > > header) should be avoided.
> >
> > Are you claiming that the hwprobe work was not done in the open, but
> > secretly merged? That is not only incorrect, but rude to upstream RISC-V
> > Linux developers. I suggest you review how you interact with upstream
> > kernel work.
>
> Please don't put words into my mouth...
>
> I was merely pointing out that there was no engagement by the RVI
> member companies (in regard to this mechanism) within RVI, which would
> have prevented Jessica's issue.
> This would have also helped to address the concerns on vendor-defined
> extensions.
>
> Also who do you refer to when you say "how _you_ interact"?  If it is
> RVI that you refer to: it doesn't interact with upstream work
> directly, as it doesn't own any engineering resources.
> RVI provides a forum for member companies to come to an
> understanding/design and then have the member companies perform the
> work and take it upstream.

I'm not even sure what you're looking for here: if RVI doesn't want to 
work upstream, then complaining that RVI isn't part of upstream 
discussions is pretty pointless.

> > Why didn't RVI get involved in the review of the series? The expectation
> > cannot be that all open source projects go to RVI, but rather the other
> > way around.
>
> That is exactly the point I was making and which you seem to miss: RVI
> does not own any engineering resources and depends solely on its
> member companies to project into open source projects.
>
> > Take a look at commit ea3de9ce8aa2 ("RISC-V: Add a syscall for HW
> > probing"). Your team was very much involved in the review.
>
> I am aware, as I had reviewed and commented on these are well.
> And my only request (was and) is that we need to figure out a way to
> efficiently deal with vendor-defined extensions.

Maybe you should go talk to you team, then?  Handling vendor extensions 
via hwprobe has been discussed, sounds like you're confused again.