From b872f4687cf0b8c7ca22ea27dd8099a9a5ce69c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:56:27 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] clarify --- isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn index cad45abe0..9cd047b43 100644 --- a/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn +++ b/isa_conflict_resolution.mdwn @@ -392,11 +392,14 @@ Overall the mvendor/march-id WARL idea meets the three requirements, and is the only idea that meets the three requirements: * **Any proposal must be a minimal change with minimal (or zero) impact** - (met through being purely a single change to the specification: - mvendor/march-id changes from read-only to WARL) + (met through being purely a single backwards-compatible change to the + wording of the specification: mvendor/march-id changes from read-only + to WARL) * **Any proposal should place no restriction on existing or future ISA encoding space** - (met because it is just a change to one pre-existing CSR) + (met because it is just a change to one pre-existing CSR, as opposed + to requiring additional CSRs or requiring extra opcodes or changes + to existing opcodes) * **Any proposal should take into account that there are existing implementors of the (yet to be finalised but still "partly frozen") Standard who may resist, for financial investment reasons, efforts to make any change -- 2.30.2