[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55B6011C.9070906@codethink.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:59:56 +0100
From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: errata 430973: move !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM to Kconfig
On 27/07/15 02:14, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:51:45PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 02:16:06AM +0200, Sebastian Reichel
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:35:53PM +0100, Russell King - ARM
>>> Linux wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 02:48:03AM +0200, Sebastian Reichel
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Having the !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM dependency in the Kconfig
>>>>> file results in one option less to think about when
>>>>> configuring the kernel.
>>>>
>>>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973) &&
>>>>> !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM) +#ifdef
>>>>> CONFIG_ARM_ERRATA_430973 teq r3, #0x00100000 @ only
>>>>> present in r1p* mrceq p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 1 @ read aux
>>>>> control register orreq r0, r0, #(1 << 6) @ set IBE to 1
>>>>
>>>> NAK. Please read the mailing list history, I'm not
>>>> repeating myself again on this. Thanks.
>>>
>>> It's a bit hard to search the mailing list history without a
>>> bit more information.
>>
>> You were Cc'd on the previous round of review...
>
> But that discussion was about removing the check alltogether iirc.
> This patch does not remove the !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM check. It just
> *moves* it from the sourcecode to the errata's Kconfig entry.
>
> The intention was to hide the Kconfig option on multiplatform
> kernels, since it's completely useless there after the N900
> boardcode has been changed (PATCH 1/3).
>
>>> I guess you prefer to just add the !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM
>>> dependency to the Kconfig entry without removing the
>>> additional check in the code?
>>
>> I was referring to the above change.
>>
>> However, having discussed with Will Deacon and checked the
>> manuals, I think the change is okay after all: the auxillary
>> control register is banked on secure parts, and the bit we'll be
>> trying to change will be read-only in non-secure mode - and
>> importantly won't fault.
>>
>> So, the change is fine, thanks.
>
> I think you missed the part adding the !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM
> dependency in Kconfig for ARM_ERRATA_430973. I only removed the
> check in the sourcecode, since it is no longer required with the
> dependency being in Kconfig.
>
> So I guess there are 3 options now:
>
> 1. Add !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM dependency to Kconfig, keep extra check
> in the sourcecode 2. Add !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM dependency to Kconfig,
> remove extra check in the sourcecode 3. Remove !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM
> dependency alltogether
>
> I will send an appropriate patch, if you tell me your preferred
> option.
This isn't the only place ARM_ERRATA_430973 is used, and if
you make it configurable on !ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM then it makes
it impossible to use a ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM kernel on something
that is an Cortex-A8.
See arch/arm/mm/proc-v7-2level.S
--
Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius
--
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