[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200414173208.GA22802@alpha.franken.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:32:08 +0200
From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: Limit check_bugs32() to affected platform
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 10:32:02AM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> On 04/11/2020 12:25 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >
> >On 4/9/2020 8:20 PM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> >>In the current code, check_bugs32() only handles MIPS32 CPU type CPU_34K,
> >>it is better to build and call it on the affected platform.
> >>
> >>Move check_bugs32() to the new added 34k-bugs32.c to indicate the fact that
> >>the code is specific to the 34k CPU, and also add CONFIG_CPU_34K_BUGS32 to
> >>control whether or not check the bugs.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
> >This is not a whole lot of code, so moving this to a separate
> >translation unit seems a bit heavy handed, also file renames, albeit
> >tracked properly by git are always a challenge when doing back ports.
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> There exists the following three ways to do it, I'm fine either way,
> maybe the first way looks better. Let us wait for the MIPS maintainer
> to say what he prefer.
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> What is your opinion?
I don't see a reason for doing that at all. The 34K workaround is only
compiled in if CONFIG_SYS_HAS_CPU_MIPS32_R2 is defined.
Thomas.
--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists