Hi Conor, On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:05 PM <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 15/08/2022 20:57, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > > Hi Conor, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 8:10 PM <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 15/08/2022 16:14, Lad Prabhakar wrote: > >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > >>> > >>> Introduce SOC_RENESAS_RZFIVE config option to enable Renesas RZ/Five > >>> (R9A07G043) SoC, along side also add ARCH_RENESAS config option as most > >>> of the Renesas drivers depend on this config option. > >> > >> Hey Lad, > >> > >> I think I said something similar on v1, but I said it again > >> to Samuel today so I may as well repost here too: > >> "I think this and patch 12/12 with the defconfig changes should be > > patch 8/8. > > It was a direct copy paste, hence the quotes ;) :) > Your patch 8/8 lines up with the current symbols while Samuel's > doesn't. > > > > > > >> deferred until post LPC (which still leaves plenty of time for > >> making the 6.1 merge window). We already have like 4 different > >> approaches between the existing SOC_FOO symbols & two more when > >> D1 stuff and the Renesas stuff is considered. > >> > >> Plan is to decide at LPC on one approach for what to do with > >> Kconfig.socs & to me it seems like a good idea to do what's being > >> done here - it's likely that further arm vendors will move and > >> keeping the common symbols makes a lot of sense to me..." > >> > > Sure not a problem. But delaying patch 4 and 8 will make RZ/Five SoC > > not buildable. Is that OK? > > No no, I prob just did a bad job of explaining. I meant more > along the lines of "I don't think this is the right approach > but I will defer reviewing until after LPC, when we have picked > one approach to use for everyone". I'm sorry, poor choice of > words maybe. I didn't mean drop these patches so that it does > not build, keeping it buildable until then so that we can all > test/review is the way to go. Not your fault we've done 4 different > things so far! > > Hopefully that makes a bit more sense? > Yep, that makes sense. > > > >> Also, for the sake of my OCD could you pick either riscv or > >> RISC-V and use it for the whole series? Pedantic I guess, but > >> /shrug > >> > > Sorry did you mean I add riscv/RISC-V in the subject? > > You have some patches with RISC-V and some with riscv. > What I meant was use one of the two for the whole series. I followed the previous subjects for that file which were previously accepted. But not a problem I'll change them to riscv instead. Cheers, Prabhakar
