linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: RISC-V PLIC documentation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180809064353.GA19566@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 08:43:53 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, atish.patra@....com,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        jason@...edaemon.net, marc.zyngier@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        anup@...infault.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, shorne@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: RISC-V PLIC
        documentation

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:29:17PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> So I guess to answer my question, you are just making up version
>> numbers. Unless you are doing the IP verilog too, don't do that.
>
> Well, in this case my proposal would be that we change the hardware team's 
> versioning scheme to match whatever we decide on the versioning scheme 
> should be as a part of this discussion.  I proposed accepting whatever 
> versioning scheme is decided upon hereto the hardware team before 
> discussing changing the naming scheme and they agreed to do so.
>
> So we're really in the drivers' seat here.
>
>> If you want to use just 'sifive,plic' then I'm fine with that. I've
>> given you the potential problems with that and they will be your
>> problems to deal with. Maybe you'll get lucky. Plus it won't be a
>> problem for the 1st implementation.
>
> I'd prefer to have some versioning scheme, that's why I'm talking so much 
> about this :).  I really just want to learn how to get the right one, as 
> I'm quite new to all this and we'll have many of these.

Based on the discussion so far I think we should settle for sifive,plic +
an actual implementation string suggested by Palmer and Andrew.

This is what I have right now:

http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/riscv.git/commitdiff/1972707029f8f1216dbe14bd7791295e4b37f560

and which I'd like to send out before it is too late.