[PATCH v2 4/8] RISC-V: Kconfig.socs: Add Renesas RZ/Five SoC kconfig option

[Lad, Prabhakar]

Hi Conor,

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 9:05 PM <Conor.Dooley at microchip.com> 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 at microchip.com> 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