Merge patch series "Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance changes"

Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> says:

We've had a patch acceptance policy that doesn't match reality, this
changes the policy and also makes some more minor cleanups as well.

* b4-shazam-merge:
  Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: s/implementor/implementer
  Documentation: RISC-V: Mention the UEFI Standards
  Documentation: RISC-V: Allow patches for non-standard behavior
  Documentation: RISC-V: Fix a typo in patch-acceptance

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221207020815.16214-1-palmer@rivosinc.comSigned-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>

Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst

@@ -20,16 +20,22 @@ Submit Checklist Addendum
 -------------------------
 We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
 specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being
-"Frozen" or "Ratified" by the RISC-V Foundation.  (Developers may, of
-course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that contain code for
-any draft extensions that they wish.)
+unlikely to be incompatibly changed in the future.  For
+specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or
+"Ratified", for the UEFI forum specifications this means a published
+ECR.  (Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
+that contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.)
 
-Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create
+Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementers to create
 their own custom extensions.  These custom extensions aren't required
 to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V
 Foundation.  To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential
 performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific
-RISC-V extensions, we'll only to accept patches for extensions that
-have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation.
-(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
-containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.)
+RISC-V extensions, we'll only consider patches for extensions that either:
+
+- Have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation, or
+- Have been implemented in hardware that is widely available, per standard
+  Linux practice.
+
+(Implementers, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing
+code for any custom extensions that they wish.)