[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <860b7dac-ccad-b6c9-c7be-537d6b1c5ede@marcan.st>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 18:23:28 +0900
From: Hector Martin 'marcan' <marcan@...can.st>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: soc@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] arm64: Kconfig: Require FIQ support for ARCH_APPLE
On 07/02/2021 00.46, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> config ARCH_APPLE
>> bool "Apple Silicon SoC family"
>> select GENERIC_IRQ_CHIP
>> + select ARM64_FIQ_SUPPORT
>
> Ah, this is what I was expecting in the previous patch. I guess the
> initial ARCH_APPLE patch could be moved down the line and add all the
> dependencies in one go.
I was trying to introduce the Kconfig before the code that depends on
it; is it kosher to have it in the other order, looking for CONFIG_
defines that don't exist yet?
Though in this case the only user earlier in the series is the Samsung
stuff, which doesn't care about FIQs, so I can just sort things as
FIQ->ARCH_APPLE->samsung->AIC...
I'm not sure about AIC vs. ARCH_APPLE though. Right now the pattern is
that AIC depends on ARCH_APPLE and also defaults to that. But then you
can build with ARCH_APPLE and AIC disabled if you so choose, which does
result in a broken system on these machines. AIC should build without
ARCH_APPLE (as long as we're on ARM64), so we could reverse that.
--
Hector Martin "marcan" (marcan@...can.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub
Powered by blists - more mailing lists