Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 22:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
To:     Loys Ollivier <lollivier@baylibre.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arch: riscv: add support for building DTB files
 from DT source data
In-Reply-To: <86v9xlh0x8.fsf@baylibre.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1906062208280.28147@viisi.sifive.com>
References: <20190602080500.31700-1-paul.walmsley@sifive.com> <20190602080500.31700-2-paul.walmsley@sifive.com> <86v9xlh0x8.fsf@baylibre.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (DEB 301 2018-08-15)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.

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?

Thanks for the comment,

- Paul