On Sat, 8 Jun 2019, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:12:05 PDT (-0700), Paul Walmsley 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. > > The SOC stuff will, of course, be vendor specific. In this idealized world > SiFive's SOC support has nothing to do with RISC-V, but of course all of > SiFive's SOCs are RISC-V based so the separation is a bit of pedantry. That > said, in this case I think getting the name right does make it slightly easier > to espouse this "one kernel can run on all RISC-V systems" philosophy. > Balancing the SiFive and RISC-V stuff can be a bit tricky, which is why I am > sometimes a bit pedantic about these sorts of things.
Once there are SoC variants that have different CPU cores, but with the remaining chip integration the same, I think it would make sense to move the CONFIG_SOC_ stuff out from ARM, RISC-V, etc., into something that's not CPU architecture-specific. But for the time being, that seems premature. Might as well have it be driven by an actual use-case. - Paul
