linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: Add Broadcom iProc family 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, 15 Jul 2015 15:03:52 -0700
From:	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
To:	Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: Add Broadcom iProc family support



On 7/15/2015 2:53 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 06:42 AM, Ray Jui wrote:
>> This patch adds support to Broadcom's iProc family of arm64 based SoCs
>> in the arm64 Kconfig and defconfig files
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig           |    5 +++++
>>  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig |    2 ++
>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> index 318175f..969ef4a 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> @@ -162,6 +162,11 @@ source "kernel/Kconfig.freezer"
>>  
>>  menu "Platform selection"
>>  
>> +config ARCH_BCM_IPROC
>> +	bool "Broadcom iProc SoC Family"
>> +	help
>> +	  This enables support for Broadcom iProc based SoCs
>> +
> 
> Is this working correctly if we have ARCH_BCM_IPROC under ARM and ARM64?
> They are guarding the same SoC line, which now uses ARM64 CPUS.
> 

Yes, since the "ARCH=" parameter from the compiler helps to route it to
the right directory, arch/arm or arch/arm64, and you cannot compile both
in a single image. Same case for other SoCs, e.g., tegra (ARCH_TEGRA),
exynos (ARCH_EXYNOS), and etc.

The benefit of sharing the same arch flag is that the device driver that
exists in iProc family of SoCs (both arm32 and arm64) can be guarded or
enabled properly.

Thanks,

Ray
--
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/