Palmer suggested at some point, not sure if it was in one of the
weekly linux-riscv syncs, or a conversation at FOSDEM, that we
should document the role of the automation running on our patchwork
instance plays in patch acceptance.
Add a short note to the patch-acceptance document to that end.
Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Reviewed-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230606-rehab-monsoon-12c17bbe08e3@wendy
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Implementor does appear to be a word, but it's not very common.
Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-5-palmer@rivosinc.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
The current patch acceptance policy requires that specifications are
approved by the RISC-V foundation, but we rely on external
specifications as well. This explicitly calls out the UEFI
specifications that we're starting to depend on.
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-4-palmer@rivosinc.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
The patch acceptance policy forbids accepting support for non-standard
behavior. This policy was written in order to both steer implementers
towards the standards and to avoid coupling the upstream kernel too
tightly to vendor-specific features. Those were good goals, but in
practice the policy just isn't working: every RISC-V system we have
needs vendor-specific behavior in the kernel and we end up taking that
support which violates the policy. That's confusing for contributors,
which is the main reason we have a written policy in the first place.
So let's just start taking code for vendor-defined behavior.
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/alpine.DEB.2.21.999.2211181027590.4480@utopia.booyaka.com/
[Palmer: merge in Paul's suggestions]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-3-palmer@rivosinc.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Formalize, in kernel documentation, the patch acceptance policy for
arch/riscv. In summary, it states that as maintainers, we plan to
only accept patches for new modules or extensions that have been
frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation.
We've been following these guidelines for the past few months. In the
meantime, we've received quite a bit of feedback that it would be
helpful to have these guidelines formally documented.
Based on a suggestion from Matthew Wilcox, we also add a link to this
file to Documentation/process/index.rst, to make this document easier
to find. The format of this document has also been changed to align
to the format outlined in the maintainer entry profiles, in accordance
with comments from Jon Corbet and Dan Williams.
Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Cc: Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: Krste Asanovic <krste@berkeley.edu>
Cc: Andrew Waterman <waterman@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
