linux/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
Palmer Dabbelt a39c636506
Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: s/implementor/implementer
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>
2022-12-13 09:38:28 -08:00

42 lines
1.9 KiB
ReStructuredText

.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
arch/riscv maintenance guidelines for developers
================================================
Overview
--------
The RISC-V instruction set architecture is developed in the open:
in-progress drafts are available for all to review and to experiment
with implementations. New module or extension drafts can change
during the development process - sometimes in ways that are
incompatible with previous drafts. This flexibility can present a
challenge for RISC-V Linux maintenance. Linux maintainers disapprove
of churn, and the Linux development process prefers well-reviewed and
tested code over experimental code. We wish to extend these same
principles to the RISC-V-related code that will be accepted for
inclusion in the kernel.
Submit Checklist Addendum
-------------------------
We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being
unlikely to be incompatibly changed in the future. For
specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or
"Ratified", for the UEFI forum specifications this means a published
ECR. (Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
that contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.)
Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementers to create
their own custom extensions. These custom extensions aren't required
to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V
Foundation. To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential
performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific
RISC-V extensions, we'll only consider patches for extensions that either:
- Have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation, or
- Have been implemented in hardware that is widely available, per standard
Linux practice.
(Implementers, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing
code for any custom extensions that they wish.)