On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 6:26 AM Andrew Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 04:54:43PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > > > > On 5/15/2026 3:15 PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 05:46:38PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > > From: Fei Wu <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > The harts requirements of RISC-V server platform [1] require RVA23 ISA > > > > profile support and others. > > > > > > > > This patch provides a new "riscv-server-ref" CPU to go along with the > > > > future "riscv-server-ref" board. > > > > > > About compatibility, if we get a server platform spec v2.0 that requires > > > a different machine and RVA28 + Sxxx CPU. Is the plan to update these, > > > or add a new CPU and machine types? If the latter, then perhaps a > > > version in the names like riscv-server-v1.0 / riscv-server-v1.0-cpu > > > would be good. > > > > Good question. We can get away with machine props to change the board > > behavior based on spec version but not sure if this makes sense with > > a CPU. I suppose we could live with: > > > > -cpu riscv-server-ref,spec1.1=on > > > > to change the CPU setup to v1.1 and so on, but creating a new CPU with the > > spec version in the name like you suggested (e.g. riscv-server-ref-v1.1) > > seems cleaner. In particular if the spec doesn't change that much - which > > I guess it's fair to assume given that a reference spec wouldn't be much > > of a reference if it keeps changing/updating all the time ...
I'm not holding my breath here, I think we should do something > > How about we make the platform spec version properties global properties so > they can cleanly apply to both the machine model and the cpu model? > > -global platform_spec_1_0=on -machine riscv-server-ref -cpu riscv-server-ref That's not a bad idea Alistair > > Thanks, > drew >
