[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1110141402150.17040@xanadu.home>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:03:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"Colin Cross (ccross@...roid.com)" <ccross@...roid.com>,
Erik Gilling <konkers@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm/tegra: select AUTO_ZRELADDR by default
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Friday 14 October 2011, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann wrote at Friday, October 14, 2011 9:30 AM:
> >> ...
> >> > You mention that tegra30 will require AUTO_ZRELADDR.
> >>
> >> Well, just to be clear, here's the situation I think:
> >>
> >> Tegra20's SDRAM starts at physical address 0.
> >>
> >> Tegra30's SDRAM starts at physical address 2G.
> >>
> >> To support that, we could either:
> >>
> >> a) Introduce a new Kconfig variable for Tegra30, make T20/T30 mutually
> >> exclusive, and update arch/arm/mach-tegra/Makefile.boot to set zreladdr
> >> etc. based on the new Tegra30 config variable too. Then, there's no need
> >> for AUTO_ZRELADDR anywhere.
> >>
> >> b) Have no new config variable, build a unified T20/T30 kernel, leave
> >> Makefile.boot untouched, and rely on using AUTO_ZRELADDR for Tegra30 to
> >> account for the different SDRAM physical addresses.
> >
> > Ok, thanks for the explanation, that makes it much clearer. For
> > completeness, you could also do both of the above and make T20/T30 mutually
> > exclusive unless AUTO_ZRELADDR is set. That might be more complex than
> > necessary, I don't know.
>
> That is likely to get messy.
>
> Seems like there could be some use for a (silent) option for a
> platform to indicate that it can do XIP kernel (or zImage), and thus
> not able to use AUTO_ZRELADDR (or other options that require rewriting
> text segment of zImage or kernel).
>
> Language gets awkard though, since it'd be a negative option (or all
> platforms would need to add it). MACH_XIP_UNSUPPORTED perhaps?
Please hold on -- I'm on it.
Nicolas
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists