start filling in

[libreriscv.git] / isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn

diff --git a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
index f7e06b30b8698d177e9231e0c000387cdf826cf3..b2b3b212458f5b661e286270f5aeaef5619b628a 100644 (file)
--- a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
+++ b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
@@ -46,11 +46,11 @@ unpatched tools.  This practice is well-known to result in security
 flaws going unpatched, with one of many immediate undesirable consequences
 being that product in extremely large volume gets discarded into landfill.
 
-All and any of the issues that were discussed, and all of those that
+**All and any of the issues that were discussed, and all of those that
 were not, can be avoided by providing a hardware-level runtime-enabled
 forwards and backwards compatible transition path between *all* parts
 (mandatory or not) of current and future revisions of the RISC-V ISA
-Standard.
+Standard.**
 
 The rest of the discussion - indicative as it was of the stark mutually
 exclusive gap being faced by the RISC-V ISA Standard given that it does
@@ -59,8 +59,9 @@ camps: one that wanted things to remain as they are, and another that
 made efforts to point out that the consequences of not taking action
 are clearly extreme and irreversible (which, unfortunately, given the
 severity, some of the first group were unable to believe, despite there
-being clear historical precedent for the same mistake being made in
-other architectures).
+being clear historical precedent for the exact same mistake being made in
+other architectures, and the consequences on the same being absolutely
+clear).
 
 However after a significant amount of time, certain clear requirements came
 out of the discussion:
@@ -124,9 +125,16 @@ space (48-bit, 64-bit) *greater* than that which the chosen core could
 cope with (32-bit, 48-bit).
 
 Overall, none of the options presented were feasible, and, in addition,
-even if they were followed through, still would result in the failure
-of the RISC-V ecosystem due to global conflicting ISA binary-encoding
-meanings (POWERPC's Altivec / SPE nightmare).
+with no clear leadership from the RISC-V Foundation on how to avoid
+global world-wide encoding conflict, even if they were followed through,
+still would result in the failure of the RISC-V ecosystem due to
+irreversible global conflicting ISA binary-encoding meanings (POWERPC's
+Altivec / SPE nightmare).
+
+This in addition to the case where the RISC-V Foundation wishes to
+fix a critical show-stopping update to the Standard, post-release,
+where billions of dollars have been spent on deploying RISC-V in the
+field.
 
 # Do nothing (out of scope)
 
@@ -137,13 +145,13 @@ This was one of the first arguments presented: The RISC-V Foundation
 considers Custom Extensions to be "out of scope"; that "it's not their
 problem, therefore there isn't a problem".
 
-The logical errors in this argument were quickly enumerated: namely
-that the RISC-V Foundation is not in control of the use-cases, such
-that binary-encoding is a hundred percent guaranteed to occur, and
-a hundred percent guaranteed to occur in *commodity* hardware where
-Debian, Fedora, SUSE and other distros will be hardest hit by the
-resultant chaos, and that will just be the more "visible" aspect of
-the underlying problem.
+The logical errors in this argument were quickly enumerated: namely that
+the RISC-V Foundation is not in control of the uses to which RISC-V is
+put, such that public global conflicts in binary-encoding are a hundred
+percent guaranteed to occur, and a hundred percent guaranteed to occur in
+*commodity* hardware where Debian, Fedora, SUSE and other distros will
+be hardest hit by the resultant chaos, and that will just be the more
+"visible" aspect of the underlying problem.
 
 # Do nothing (Compliance too complex, therefore out of scope)