[PATCH] D136968: [RISCV][docs] Add some wording around vendor extensions

[Alex Bradbury via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

asb added a comment.

Two suggestions, but otherwise looks good to me. Thanks!



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/RISCVUsage.rst:152
+
+Vendor extensions are extensions which are not standardized by RVI, and are instead defined by a hardware vendor.  At the moment, LLVM does not support any vendor extensions for RISC-V, but we expect this to change in the future.
+
----------------
This is the first and only reference to "RVI" in this document. It would be better to spell it out as "RISC-V International"


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/RISCVUsage.rst:156
+
+Inclusion of a vendor extension will be considered on a case by case basis.  All proposals should be brought to the bi-weekly RISCV sync calls for discussion.  For a general idea of the factors likely to be considered, please see the `Clang documentation <https://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html>`_.
+
----------------
"for discussion" -> "for initial discussion, which may lead to a request to write up an RFC on LLVM's Discourse".

We don't have a policy here yet - I suspect it might not be the case that _every_ vendor extension needs an RFC (e.g. cases where there's a small number of instructions supported only at the MC layer), but I think it would be good to flag that there are cases where broader LLVM developer buy-in might be necessary, and also make it clear that nothing in this document implies discussion on the sync-up calls bypasses that.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D136968/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D136968