Absolutely! Medievalists have been discussing it for generations. I think Peter Brown's review helped focus the way scholars talked about Pirenne, just before archaeological studies began to have impact—with the important exception of Pirenne's younger contemporary, Sture Bolin, who talked about how coins in Scandinavia might force some reconsiderations of Pirenne's evidence. But archaeology was really first brought to bear by Hodges and Whitehouse. We've come a long way since then in how we study both texts and the archaeological record, and two massive but useful studies have more recently been published by McCormick and Wickham. You might want to see their introductions or leaf through their indexes to find their comments on Pirenne. Most recently, Effros has published a brilliant review article of the scholarship drawing on Pirenne. I'd start with her. There's other important discussions, too, but I think these might be the best to start with.

• Sture Bolin, “Mohammed, Charlemagne and Ruric,” Scandinavian Economic History Review 1 (1953): 5-39.

• Peter Brown, "Mohammed and Charlemagne by Henri Pirenne,” Daedalus 103.1 (Winter, 1974): 25-33.

• Richard Hodges and David Whitehouse, Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Europe: Archaeology and the Pirenne Thesis (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983).

• Michael McCormick, The Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300–900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

• Chris Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

• Bonnie Effros, "The Enduring Attraction of the Pirenne Thesis," Speculum 92.1 (Jan., 2017): 184–208.