linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arch: riscv: add support for building DTB files from DT source data

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <86y32dwwrt.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date:   Fri, 07 Jun 2019 11:49:10 +0200
From:   Loys Ollivier <lollivier@...libre.com>
To:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arch: riscv: add support for building DTB files from DT source data

On Thu 06 Jun 2019 at 22:12, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Loys Ollivier wrote:
>
>> Always build it ?
>> Any particular reason to drop ARCH_SIFIVE ?
>
> Palmer had some reservations about it, so I dropped it for now.  But then 
> as I was thinking about it, I remembered that I also had some reservations 
> about it, years ago: that everyone should use CONFIG_SOC_* for this, 
> rather than CONFIG_ARCH.  CONFIG_ARCH_* seems better reserved for 
> CPU architectures.

Agree on the CONFIG_SOC.

>
> If you agree, would you like to send a followup series, based on the DT 
> patches, to make the SiFive DT file builds depend on CONFIG_SOC_* instead?

Sure, I'd be glad to follow up on that. I'll send a followup series to
start a discussion.

--
Loys