On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:41 PM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@sifive.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:20:34 PDT (-0700), Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 15:17, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I think it's simplest if all series (RISC-V, remove unassigned_access, > >> this one) go through the RISC-V tree. > > > > I don't inherently object but IME the risc-v tree tends to move > > comparatively slowly. The initial risc-v conversion patchset > > should definitely go via the risc-v tree, anyway. > > We still don't have the riscv_cpu_unassigned_access() removal patches in, > which > IIRC got blocked on review but I can no longer dig out of my inbox. IIRC the > patches Alistair sent were still "From: Palmer", which means I can't review > them.
The patches are reviewed by Richard and Philippe, they should be ready to merge. Alistair > > I'm fine taking this on top of those, but it looks like there's still some > debate about the patch itself. I don't see a v2. >
