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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,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 2FD5DC3A59B for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 02:04:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3B22343B for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2019 02:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sifive.com header.i=@sifive.com header.b="BmtM9QT7" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728332AbfHaCEc (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 22:04:32 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com ([209.85.214.193]:44980 "EHLO mail-pl1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726406AbfHaCEc (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 22:04:32 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id t14so4121611plr.11 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:04:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sifive.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=zKp+R2++ZW7vYFmoNUR8A5wlNJqeNnULOZAUz1UqSlk=; b=BmtM9QT7x3OHnPhXRJ7wL/Pd4ecqOVF5NirfoHQHlQx/Elav8lNEhefX/wm8nIGJRi fV4EdJuRGzap2GHd+vD/ARdNuPXtQSUKYi/rMRjD8I4RwNXKBIitbpt/2IA5ZRV+Ko9K 8iPQIPuFR4JxrYR9/L2cwkJ9bQSVdpLVG9qkf1tPfnMQWaEzLufOIu1hRoTNRD9S+2ZS uvu3TBGPAbSZx5reXnBSRICqXr5+WNGAhxCBAU0H4RT4l3En9iKHcZ50UFDqS5hwW96v WqIz5qrFt+cgvprBrRiwSnd3/WdH6T8JspMhJK4h/zEsT+dpEJywhukT0F+Y5l2We/00 beXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=zKp+R2++ZW7vYFmoNUR8A5wlNJqeNnULOZAUz1UqSlk=; b=MAYVG7iCbsi7R2qK6MNPZXZgU75wFCQNQ1ITZbNMOGq4YPhjlda82ZOhro4K6HjLYE vV+xymgLN8qOUMubiOksaPJ8yUw+zTNX80eYMUDmNFa1IdgqsnUQHgU75j+sx/U6ui8P 8nBvKyrbtzCkMQ3PKTcYjhWxnKOjnulZDGI9AeoMe+dKIF2KXTR7aqPVXsg5CPAPly0+ /dBNJf0hHfPQzUVdcABe+vsQrLbW/gxVq2JSGqTBsTElpR3bGuwePqawrhR8c/QcSV9F AX+igmzvY9g2J3ebDLSf5HrkCFRg9R4uNHR07z1wFl2DKwmJ/ApRGaUxmmiBDch1Ez1F Xd+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVnb0FdCNLqsxm9073B0MyprVBreBC3TrkqUx/ur2n9CoprwOV3 8PXnAYuAv4TQQg4ZWCPpmF07zA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyomcceqFTqZJE7UZzkXFxj6XuIpOYDoJCJqoosAJW7N7akdJMUvYpMH+vTEGWMH6pjESCUgQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:fa5:: with SMTP id 34mr19000900plz.285.1567217071865; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([216.9.110.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y13sm11526177pfb.48.2019.08.30.19.04.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:04:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Walmsley X-X-Sender: paulw@viisi.sifive.com To: Charles Papon cc: Christoph Hellwig , Bin Meng , Atish Patra , linux-riscv , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: kbuild: drop CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20190812150348.GH26897@infradead.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (DEB 301 2018-08-15) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Charles, On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Charles Papon wrote: > > Because it it the unix platform baseline as stated in the patch. > I know that, but i'm looking for arguments why RVC could't be kept as > an option, especialy it is only an optimisation option without > behavioral/code changes. > > That baseline make sense for heavy linux distributions, where you > expect everybody to compile with a baseline set of ISA extentions, to > make binary exchanges easier. > But for smaller systems, i do not see advantages having RVC forced. OK - I agree with you. Still, I think it would be good if we made this option depend on other more general kernel configuration parameters for smaller systems. Will think about this further. Thanks for commenting on this, and am looking forward to adding a VexRiscv system to our kernel tests - - Paul