linux-kernel - [RFC PATCH 00/17] powerpc/e500: separate e500 from e500mc

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1320883635-17194-1-git-send-email-Kyle.D.Moffett@boeing.com>
Date:	Wed,  9 Nov 2011 19:06:58 -0500
From:	Kyle Moffett <Kyle.D.Moffett@...ing.com>
To:	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>,
	Timur Tabi <B04825@...escale.com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 00/17] powerpc/e500: separate e500 from e500mc

(Sorry for the repost, I accidentally omitted Baruch's email).

Hello,

I saw Baruch Siach's patch:
  powerpc: 85xx: separate e500 from e500mc

Unfortunately, that patch breaks the dependencies for the P5020DS
platform and does not fix the underlying code which does not
understand what the ambiguous "CONFIG_E500" means.

In order to fix the issue at the fundamental level, I created the
following 17-patch series loosely based on Baruch's patch.

=== High-Level Summary ===

The e500v1/v2 and e500mc/e5500 CPU families are not compatible with
each other, yet they share the same "CONFIG_E500" Kconfig option.

The following patch series splits the 32-bit CPU support into two
separate options: "CONFIG_FSL_E500_V1_V2" and "CONFIG_FSL_E500MC".
Additionally, the 64-bit e5500 support is separated to its own config
option ("CONFIG_FSL_E5500") which is automatically combined with
either 32-bit e500MC or 64-bit Book-3E when the P5020DS board support
is enabled.

I based the patches on v3.2-rc1, please let me know if I should
update the patches against a different tree.

The first 4 patches stand on their own merits; they are generic code
cleanups necessary to support the later patches.

I'd like to know what you all think.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
Curious about my work on the Debian powerpcspe port?
I'm keeping a blog here: http://pureperl.blogspot.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/