Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>
To:     Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>,
        Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
Cc:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@sifive.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
        matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
        Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@sifive.com>, nick.knight@sifive.com,
        christoph.muellner@vrull.eu, richard.henderson@linaro.org,
        arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Expose the isa-string via the AT_BASE_PLATFORM aux
 vector
In-Reply-To: <CAAeLtUADqnwrgBjhDd+iNfwhMU6YBiMUZzeopVMAh0Jq19W9JA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230424194911.264850-1-heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
 <87ednz7roh.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
 <7DD2C38C-CBB3-41EE-A195-50E4C2451B7E@jrtc27.com>
 <CAAeLtUADqnwrgBjhDd+iNfwhMU6YBiMUZzeopVMAh0Jq19W9JA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 02 May 2023 09:58:38 +0200
Message-ID: <87jzxrnp01.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu> 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.

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.

Take a look at commit ea3de9ce8aa2 ("RISC-V: Add a syscall for HW
probing"). Your team was very much involved in the review.


Bj=C3=B6rn