comments and references

diff --git a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
index 3476b0567290dc60ba31c5177ea8ab9b7a20a6bd..31b8fd2c00c13a4f156337b1011e533151c8fa58 100644 (file)
--- a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
+++ b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn
@@ -326,16 +326,18 @@ being worthwhile in its own right, and standing on its own merits and
 thus definitely worthwhile pursuing, it is non-trivial and much more
 invasive than the mvendor/march-id WARL concept.
 
-# Discussion and analysis
+# Comments, Discussion and analysis
 
-TBD
+TBD: placeholder as of 26apr2018
 
-# Conclusion
+# Summary and Conclusion
 
 In the early sections (those in the category "no action") it was established
 in each case that the problem is not solved.  Avoidance of responsibility,
 or conflation of "not our problem" with "no problem" does not make "problem"
-go away.
+go away.  Even "making it the Fabless Semiconductor's problem" resulted
+in a chip being *more costly to engineer and maintain*... without actually
+fixing the problem.
 
 The first idea considered which could fix the problem was to just use
 the pre-existing MISA CSR, however this was determined not to have
@@ -439,3 +441,8 @@ The following conversation exerpts are taken from the ISA-dev discussion
 > it is implementing. It will test nothing in the custom extension space,
 > and doesn't monitor or care what is in that space.
 
+# References
+
+* <https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/7bbwSIW5aqM>
+* <https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/isa-dev/InzQ1wr_3Ak%5B1-25%5D>
+