[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201205140854.18335.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:54:18 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>, shawn.guo@...aro.org,
"Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
Subject: Re: Making ARM multiplatform kernels DT-only?
On Saturday 05 May 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From the statements made so far, I can see no clear policy that we can
> apply to everyone. My take on this is that for any work I spend on
> multiplatform kernel, I concentrate on the DT-based board files and
> get them to work together first, but leave it up to the individual
> subarch maintainers whether they want to add other board files into
> the mix.
A small update that I already posted as a comment in the lwn article
covering this discussion:
| Over the last week, I've actually tried out building kernels for
| multiple platforms combined to get a better feeling for the remaining
| problems. The result is in the testing/multiplatform branch of
| git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git and it
| can build arbitrary combinations of four of the five subarchitectures
| that the Linaro organization is most interested in (imx, omap, ux500 and
| vexpress, but not exynos for now). Most other platforms should actually
| be simpler to convert.
|
| However, this kernel is not yet going to be useful on real hardware
| because I had to disable or add hacks for a number of features (SMP,
| sparseirq, clocks) that are still being worked on, but as soon as one
| oatform has all that work done, we can actually build a kernel with
| everything enabled and run on that particular platform and see what
| else breaks.
|
| Unlike I suggested earlier, this kernel at the moment actually allows
| enabling all the board files including non-DT ones because that was
| easier to do with the Kconfig dependencies, but I found two real technical
| issues that would be solved by making the combined kernel DT-only:
|
| 1. The exynos platform defines static platform devices from files
| shared with five other Samsung platforms that are mutually exclusive
| because the device definitions depend on platform specific compile-time
| constants. Using DT probing we can just drop those static platform device
| definitions and make the conflict go away.
|
| 2. With sparse IRQs, a lot of the hardcoded interrupt numbers in static
| platform device definitions are broken, while the definitions from DT
| still work. Sparse IRQs are currently needed to build multiplatform
| kernels and I expect that requirement to stay.
Arnd
--
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