Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
To:     Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com>,
        guoren@kernel.org, Liu Shaohua <liush@allwinnertech.com>,
        wefu@redhat.com
Cc:     anup.patel@wdc.com, atish.patra@wdc.com, palmerdabbelt@google.com,
        christoph.muellner@vrull.eu, philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu, hch@lst.de,
        lazyparser@gmail.com, drew@beagleboard.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        taiten.peng@canonical.com, aniket.ponkshe@canonical.com,
        gordan.markus@canonical.com, Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
References: <20210911092139.79607-1-guoren@kernel.org>
 <20210911092139.79607-7-guoren@kernel.org>
 <20210913084520.kkbsupogkzv226x3@gilmour>
 <e46bb02d-961d-672d-76c7-9844d76ee69b@canonical.com>
From:   Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 6/6] riscv: soc: Add Allwinner SoC kconfig option
Message-ID: <9cd8db15-7431-dfec-6e48-dcf6b30d4f6c@sholland.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:16:06 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux ppc64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e46bb02d-961d-672d-76c7-9844d76ee69b@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/13/21 10:49 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> Calling a Kconfig menu item "Allwinner SoCs" which includes all
> future Allwinner SoCs irritates me. How about CONFIG_SOC_SUNXI_D1
> instead?

Would you want to have a separate option for each new SoC? That seems
like the only way to split things up, if you want to be more specific
than than "sunxi" (or equivalently "sun20i", which is the codename for
the RISC-V series).

Except at the very beginning (sun4i-sun7i), there have not been clear
generational boundaries between the various sunxi SoCs, so most of the
32-bit ones already get lumped into a single symbol (MACH_SUN8I). And
there is a single Kconfig symbol, ARCH_SUNXI, for all 64-bit Allwinner SoCs.

There is enough overlap in peripherals that you need a common symbol for
the peripheral drivers anyway. How about... ARCH_SUNXI? There are 90+
uses of this symbol throughout drivers/ and sound/, and I have found
that more than half of them apply to the D1 (see e.g. this commit[1] and
some of its ancestors).

RISC-V has so far adopted a CONFIG_SOC_xxx naming scheme, which is
different from arm/arm64's CONFIG_ARCH_xxx pattern. But now we have a
case where a SoC family is split between the two architectures. I'm all
for consistency with the names of other RISC-V platform symbols, but it
seems that reusing the existing ARCH_SUNXI symbol would be better than
cluttering up the driver Kconfig files with a duplicate.

Regards,
Samuel

[1]: https://github.com/smaeul/linux/commit/7841e5c32366