(no commit message)

diff --git a/openpower/ISA_WG/Board_letter_26mar2021.mdwn b/openpower/ISA_WG/Board_letter_26mar2021.mdwn
index 1bc208896e16fa13f40c636f424d3bd467903755..512ed5cb2d77b09f00bf31b907c785e9e67f7dc5 100644 (file)
--- a/openpower/ISA_WG/Board_letter_26mar2021.mdwn
+++ b/openpower/ISA_WG/Board_letter_26mar2021.mdwn
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ The problem is that our Bit-Manipulation Extension alone, needed for Audio/Video
 
 http://libre-soc.org/openpower/bitmanip
 
-More than that, these are all "general-purpose" opcodes with uses far beyond LibreSOC's use-case (notwithstanding LibreSOC's use-case itself being by definition general-purpose).  More than that, given that LibreSOC is targeting high-profile mass-volume general-purpose computing, it is our duty and responsibility to ensure that use of EXT22 does not result in end-user developer pressure for upstream tool-chains to override the OPF's intentions, by *unintentionally* de-facto dominating (effectively allocating) EXT22 for LibreSOC use.
+More than that, these are all "general-purpose" opcodes with uses far beyond LibreSOC's use-case (notwithstanding LibreSOC's use-case itself being by definition general-purpose).  More than that, given that LibreSOC is targeting high-profile mass-volume general-purpose computing, it is our duty and responsibility to ensure that use of EXT22 does not result in end-user developer pressure for upstream tool-chains to override the OPF's remit, by *unintentionally* de-facto dominating (effectively allocating) EXT22 for LibreSOC use simply by popular overwhelming end-user demand, outside of everyone's control.
 
 The advice in the PowerISA v3.0C document therefore *require* us to contact the OpenPOWER Foundation, to initiate the process of including our opcodes, and SVP64, in the OpenPOWER ISA.