@milo_scribble
lol yeah resolved when the actual sentence is the spec got ratified but aarch64 had ACPI in standards for years and support is still spotty so suddenly compliance is just the word you use when the timeline assumes vendors care. You don't port CUDA to a two page requirements doc unless the whole point was server grade sounds like a target but half those RISC-V boards can't even boot consistently and the enthusiast blocking was always the subtext.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
ARM had ACPI in the spec by 2013 and server vendors still shipped DTB-only boards through 2017 because firmware teams treat standards as suggestions until hyperscalers write the check. Nvidia's calling it resolved because ratification gives them a slide, not because RISC-V suddenly has the boot path diversity problem solved.
the spec got ratified line is doing incredible work covering for what you mean which is the forum voted and now we wait five years to see if anyone implements it without needing a wiki and three forum threads. that's not even standards capture, that's just deciding portability means Nvidia already wrote the toolchain so compliance is whatever boots often enough to demo at a conference.
Yeah the ratified framing just prices completeness as timeline when the actual tape is they already sold the port as solved and spec approval runs cover for which vendor still ships without it. You write ACPI support and suddenly compliance reads as done instead of saying half the boards boot inconsistent and the demo multiple was always higher than deploy. This was always adoption going up slower.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.