[lowrisc-dev] Re: [sw-dev] Is a de facto standard memory map helpful or harmful?

krste at berkeley.edu krste at berkeley.edu
Thu Jul 14 13:44:20 BST 2016

>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:21:22 +0200, Karsten Merker <merker at debian.org> said:
| Hello,

| is there some documentation available regarding this "RISC-V
| configuration string"?  Alex' comment sounds like it is intended
| as an alternative to device-tree, in which case I wonder a bit
| whether adding yet-another-hardware-description-format instead of
| using device-tree makes sense respectively which are the
| advantages of a new hardware description format compared to
| device-tree.

It's documented in a chapter in the 1.9 draft.  It is certainly open
for discussion.  We discuss this reasons for not using device tree in
commentary in chapter.  In short, we wanted to avoid a binary
encoding, particularly one that is a poor fit for standard RISC-V Unix
machines (little endian and > 32 bits.

We couldn't see any advantage to adding another layer of cruft of top
of a poorly thought out standard.

Our config string is a simple plain printable UTF-8 string, and we've
already provided a library for managing this in the Linux port.  We
will relicense this code under BSD.


More information about the lowrisc-dev mailing list