[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200416041113.112735-1-wenhu.wang@vivo.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:11:13 -0700
From: Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@...o.com>
To: oss@...error.net, Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@...o.com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: christophe.leroy@....fr, kernel@...o.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2,1/5] powerpc: 85xx: make FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM configurable
From: Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
>> + bool "32-bit kernel"
>
>Why make that user selectable ?
>
>Either a kernel is 64-bit or it is 32-bit. So having PPC64 user
>selectable is all we need.
>
>And what is the link between this change and the description in the log ?
>
>> default y if !PPC64
>> select KASAN_VMALLOC if KASAN && MODULES
>>
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config PPC_BOOK3S_32
>> bool
>>
>> menu "Processor support"
>> +
>
>Why adding this space ?
>
>> choice
>> prompt "Processor Type"
>> depends on PPC32
>> @@ -211,9 +212,9 @@ config PPC_BOOK3E
>> depends on PPC_BOOK3E_64
>>
>> config E500
>> + bool "e500 Support"
>> select FSL_EMB_PERFMON
>> select PPC_FSL_BOOK3E
>> - bool
>
>Why make this user-selectable ? This is already selected by the
>processors requiring it, ie 8500, e5500 and e6500.
>
>Is there any other case where we need E500 ?
>
>And again, what's the link between this change and the description in
>the log ?
>
>
>>
>> config PPC_E500MC
>> bool "e500mc Support"
>>
>
>Christophe
Hi, Scott, Christophe!
I find that I did not get the point well of the defferences between
configurability and selectability(maybe words I created) of Kconfig items.
You are right that FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM should only be selected by a caller
but never enable it seperately.
Same answer for the comments from Christophe. I will drop this patch in v3.
Thanks,
Wenhu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists