On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:03:46PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 07:37:33PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > The baseline for the RISC-V privileged ISA is version 1.10. Using
> > features from newer versions of the privileged ISA requires the
> > supported version to be reported by platform firmware, either in the ISA
> > string (where the binding already accepts version numbers) or in the
> > riscv,isa-extensions property. So far two newer versions are ratified.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@sifive.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes in v2:
> >  - New patch for v2
> > 
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml | 20 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > index 63d81dc895e5..7faf22df01af 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
> > @@ -121,6 +121,16 @@ properties:
> >              version of the privileged ISA specification.
> >  
> >          # multi-letter extensions, sorted alphanumerically
> 
> > +        - const: sm1p11
> 
> Why are we beholden to this "1p11" format of RVI's? We have free choice
> of characters here, what's stopping us using "machine-v1.11", for
> example?

We could also choose to communicate this using a specific property, but
I have not really thought that one through yet.