Re: [RFC 00/27] RISC-V: Convert SOC_FOO symbols to ARCH_FOO

From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	<damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>, <heiko@sntech.de>,
	<kernel@esmil.dk>, <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/27] RISC-V: Convert SOC_FOO symbols to ARCH_FOO
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:34:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YzKZYoaAbwtLcsSY@wendy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVxx7_im2wtb_Hszf2P6EuxEDjA95sJtkM9Jf9KV3xO4Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 11:04:58AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 8:59 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> >
> > Following on from LPC, here's the start of my efforts to clean up
> > Kconfig.socs.
> >
> > My preference would be to take the whole thing through the RISC-V tree
> > for v6.2 to make things a bit less fiddly, but I am sending this as an
> > RFC in the hopes of getting some opinions on how the series should be
> > split up & merged. I guess it would always be possible to create a few
> > immutable branches for the individual subsystems that are being modified
> > & take the series through the riscv tree unless we hit a conflict in
> > -next. Obiviously for that route, maintainer acks will be needed.
> 
> Iff it is decided to make this change, I suggest to do it at the end
> of the v6.1-rc1 merge window, or even better, between rc1 and rc2.
> That way the affected subsystems can just base their for-v6.2 branches
> on v6.1-rc2, and have all renames.
> 
> If (a) you postpone this to v6.2, there will be more users to handle,

Unfortunately even if this is decided upon, I am not sure I am going to
have the time to get this sorted out prior to rc1. I'd rather wait until
v6.2-rc1/2 & not rush it - especially given the number of Acks it likely
requires.

> and (b) you take this through the RISC-V tree, you will miss all newly
> introduced users in other subsystem trees.

Aye, your suggested timing makes sense, but there are quite a few
subsystems involved here, so maybe doing it at the very end of the
window rather than asking everyone to stall until rc2 may be more
feasible?

Thanks,
Conor.

> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
> 
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv