Should we merge arch/riscv/boot/dts via the SOC tree?

[Icenowy Zheng]

在 2022-11-07星期一的 18:51 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道：
> On 07/11/2022 17:46, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > This has come up a bunch of times, but I don't think we've ever
> > really
> > made a decision.  Historically that's not been such a big deal
> > because
> > the RISC-V device trees were pretty inactive, but that's changed --
> > both
> > because Conor has been cleaning everything up, and also because
> > there's
> > a bunch of SOCs showing up with RISC-V cores in them.  We talked
> > about
> > this again at plumbers a few times, but Arnd wasn't around it
> > person so
> > I figured it's best to just start an email thread and see how
> > people
> > feel.
> > 
> > A lot of these new SOCs are based on Arm designs and the device
> > trees
> > very much reflect that, so it makes sense to me to just keep the
> > device
> > tree merges via as similar a path as possible.  
> 
> Recent Renesas r9a07g043 (sharing between arm64 and riscv) is example
> of
> that. If changes to them start coming via different trees, we might
> have
> a lot of conflicts.
> 
> > IIUC that happens via
> > the SOC tree these days, so it makes sense to me that we start
> > handling
> > the RISC-V device trees that way as well.  That would make things
> > easier
> > for contributors, as they'll have one workflow for all their SOCs,
> > but
> > also easier for me as a lot of this SOC stuff touches bits I really
> > don't understand and thus get kind of lost trying to review.
> > 
> > Arnd: looks like you're handling most of the merges these days so
> > this
> > would be increasing your workload.  I feel kind of bad just dumping
> > a
> > bunch of stuff on you, but I think at least now the RISC-V DTS are
> > in
> > reasonable shape so hopefully it's not that bad.  It'd certainly
> > help
> > things on my end, and I'm happy to try and re-direct some of that
> > saved
> > time to helping out in SOC land but I'm not sure how well that'd
> > work
> > out in practice as I'm pretty buried.
> > 
> > On a somewhat related note, Conor has offered to pick up the
> > otherwise
> > unmaintained RISC-V SOCs.  That's sort of its own discussion, but
> > if we
> > change over to the SOC tree we might as well just do everything at
> > the
> > same time.
> > 
> 
> On the other hand MIPS DTS is not coming via SoC tree, so there is no
> yet such wide approach.

Fewer SoC vendors share the most of their SoC designs between ARM and
RISC-V ones.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv