[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc2b45b0-eb0f-4519-a398-2f0707d45d80@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 14:45:43 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: gpu: nova-core: arm32 build errors
On 8/28/25 12:31 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:24 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I spoke too soon, it's actually pretty painful to keep 32-bit
>> compatibility, even though it would be nice for testing purposes.
>>
>> I'll paste the diff to fix it below, I think that makes it obvious why I say
>> that.
>>
>> Instead, we should really just depend on CONFIG_64BIT (which implies
>> ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT).
Yes yes yes. :)
>
> Yeah, it isn't great.
>
> If it were just that, maybe it it is worth it (and a `DmaAddress`
> newtype, not just a typedef, could perhaps be nice anyway?), but if
> you think it will become increasingly painful later, then it may be
Oh yes, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
> best to focus on what matters.
>
> It is unlikely there is going to be actual users on a 32-bit platform, right?
Completely not going to happen, actually. The Open RM driver dropped
support for 32-bit platforms in *2018*, and Nova and Open RM have...a
relationship. For example, they use the same identical firmware (GSP etc).
And so it is inconceivable that we would attempt 32-bit support in
Nova.
So Nova should definitely depend upon 64-bit configs.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists