linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: at91: remove no-MMU at91x40 support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:10:09 +0200
From:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, gerg@...inux.org,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	ARM Maintainers <arm@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Patrice Vilchez <patrice.vilchez@...el.com>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: at91: remove no-MMU at91x40 support

On 24/09/2014 at 17:09:14 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote :
> On Wednesday 24 September 2014 17:03:11 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > > I think these can be simplified further: AT91_SAM9G45_RESET and
> > > AT91_SAM9_ALT_RESET can just go away and the files put into
> > > obj-y.
> > 
> > Yes, I had the same idea before realizing that these two directives will
> > move away in a patch already sent for 3.18. So, as this material is
> > probably 3.19-ish, I kept them as they are and keep in mind to remove
> > them when I merge them with 3.18-rc1...
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > > OLD_CLK_AT91 is the same as AT91_USE_OLD_CLK, so you could
> > > just use that instead. I suspect the 'USE_OF' dependency for
> > > COMMON_CLK_AT91 can also go away, since all platforms are
> > > either board file based and select AT91_USE_OLD_CLK, or they
> > > are DT based and don't.
> > 
> > Here also, I didn't want to touch more because we need to remove the
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig.non_dt file very soon (3.19) and I don't want
> > to change this file (or all the SoC files) before the chunks related to
> > these directives simply go away.
> > 
> > Tell me if it makes sense.
> 
> Yes, I agree your approach is better then.
> 

Yeah and what you proposed would actually break the possibility to
compile a kernel that can both boot DT and non DT platforms. My guess is
that this is why we have both OLD_CLK_AT91 and AT91_USE_OLD_CLK.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/