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:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:59:05 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Charles Papon <charles.papon.90@gmail.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: kbuild: drop CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C
Message-ID: <20190813065905.GA21020@infradead.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1908061929230.19468@viisi.sifive.com>
 <CAEUhbmVTM2OUnX-gnBZw5oqU+1MwdYkErrOnA3NGJKh5gxULng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMabmMJ3beMcs38Boe11qcsQvqY+9u=2OqA0vCSKdL=n-cK9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190812150348.GH26897@infradead.org>
 <CAMabmM+YX3L-J1GCvDaC9H66YMArfs6PuKCsE_dNMBtApOxZig@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMabmM+YX3L-J1GCvDaC9H66YMArfs6PuKCsE_dNMBtApOxZig@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:18:22AM +0200, Charles Papon wrote:
> > Because it it the unix platform baseline as stated in the patch.
> I know that, but i'm looking for arguments why RVC could't be kept as
> an option, especialy it is only an optimisation option without
> behavioral/code changes.
> 
> That baseline make sense for heavy linux distributions, where you
> expect everybody to compile with a baseline set of ISA extentions, to
> make binary exchanges easier.
> But for smaller systems, i do not see advantages having RVC forced.

I don't fully agree with the benefits, but then again how little
impact using the C extension has on the kernel build I'm now convinced
that keeping it should be ok.