From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA907C43331 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 04:42:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 859BE208C3 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 04:42:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2394253AbfIGEmV (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Sep 2019 00:42:21 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:34330 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389986AbfIGEmV (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Sep 2019 00:42:21 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id ABA0268B05; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 06:42:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 06:42:17 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Borislav Petkov , palmer@sifive.com, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yash Shah Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: move sifive_l2_cache.c to drivers/soc Message-ID: <20190907044217.GC21510@lst.de> References: <20190818082935.14869-1-hch@lst.de> <20190819060904.GA4841@zn.tnic> <20190819062619.GA20211@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 03:33:02PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote: > If that's your primary concern, then in the short term, how about just > sending a single-line patch to the arch/riscv/mm Makefile to skip building > it if !CONFIG_SOC_SIFIVE? Assuming, that is, you won't be enabling EDAC > support for those low-end SoCs. Then you won't need to get the ack > from the EDAC folks in the short term. Paul, stop it. The patch that meged this was complete crap and fucked up. And instead of just fixing up this mess ASAP you just keep arguing even when I finally get hold of a RISC-V maintainer after weeks of waiting. If this isn't going to get any better I'm just going to bypass you for RISC-V patches and will send patches straight to Linus.