linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 3/9] ARM: stm32: prepare stm32 family to welcome armv7 architecture

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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3X1icDWmVng8w0Yd58nAcViJQ9oZc4xm-dEycVPe+5pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:26:49 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com>
Cc:     Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Gerald Baeza <gerald.baeza@...com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/9] ARM: stm32: prepare stm32 family to welcome armv7 architecture

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/18/2017 09:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@...com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
>>>
>>> This patch prepares the STM32 machine for the integration of Cortex-A
>>> based microprocessor (MPU), on top of the existing Cortex-M
>>> microcontroller family (MCU). Since both MCUs and MPUs are sharing
>>> common hardware blocks we can keep using ARCH_STM32 flag for most of
>>> them. If a hardware block is specific to one family we can use either
>>> ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M or ARCH_MULTI_V7 flag.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
>>
>>
>> Looks good overall. Two more small comments:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> +if ARCH_STM32
>>> +
>>>   config MACH_STM32F429
>>> -       bool "STMicrolectronics STM32F429"
>>> -       depends on ARCH_STM32
>>> +       bool "STMicroelectronics STM32F429"
>>> +       depends on ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M
>>>          default y
>>
>>
>> Instead of the explicit dependency for each board, I'd leave the
>> surrounding
>> 'if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M'. I think you had in v1.
>
>
> As you suggest, I follow mach-at91 example.
> The point is on "depends on ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M" ?
> You prefer this way:
> config MACH_STM32F429
>         bool "STMicroelectronics STM32F429" if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M
>         default y
>

No, that would be wrong, that way you would always enable
MACH_STM32F429 when ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M is turned
off, which is exactly the wrong way round. What I meant is

if ARCH_STM32

if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M

config MACH_STM32F429
         bool "STMicrolectronics STM32F429"

config MACH_STM32...
          ...

endif # ARMv7-M

if ARCH_MULTI_V7

config MACH_STM32...
          ...

endif # ARMv7-A

endif # STM32

       Arnd