On Thu, Sep 8, 2022, at 9:00 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 10:43 PM [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 06/09/2022 21:29, Jernej Škrabec wrote:

quoted

Dne četrtek, 01. september 2022 ob 20:10:13 CEST je Palmer Dabbelt napisal(a):

quoted

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 22:08:03 PDT (-0700), samuel@sholland.org wrote:

quoted

 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-clockworkpi-v3.14.dts create
 mode 100644
 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-common-regulators.dtsi create
 mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-devterm-v3.14.dts
 create mode 100644
 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-dongshan-nezha-stu.dts create
 mode 100644
 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-lichee-rv-86-panel-480p.dts
 create mode 100644
 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-lichee-rv-86-panel-720p.dts
 create mode 100644
 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-lichee-rv-86-panel.dtsi create
 mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-lichee-rv-dock.dts
 create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-lichee-rv.dts
 create mode 100644
 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-mangopi-mq-pro.dts create mode
 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1-nezha.dts create mode
 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/allwinner/sun20i-d1.dtsi

I'm assuming these are aimed at the RISC-V tree?  I'm generally OK with
that, though the DT folks have pointed out a handful of issues that look
pretty reasonable to me.

DT changes for Allwinner ARM SoCs go trough sunxi tree. Should this be handled
differently for RISC-V?

Microchip RISC-V DT go via a Microchip tree to Palmer. The other stuff gets
picked directly by him as it has no clear "owner". I think it would be nice
to be consistent for the new {renesas,sunxi} stuff and send those via vendor
trees to Palmer too. Just my 2 cents...

Wasn't the intention behind the rename s/arm-soc/soc/ to start
accepting PRs for non-arm DT, too?
Especially if we start having dependencies due to riscv DTS files
including arm64 DTS snippets through scripts/dtc/include-prefixes/arm64/.

Yes, absolutely. My impression was that most architecture
maintainers prefer to handle the SoC support themselves, and
I would not want to step on anyone's toes with this, but I'm
definitely happy to take pull requests for dts files etc on
any architecture if that helps.

    Arnd