Thread (126 messages) 126 messages, 10 authors, 2011-02-18
STALE5583d
Revisions (9)
  1. v1 [diff vs current]
  2. v1 [diff vs current]
  3. v1 [diff vs current]
  4. v1 [diff vs current]
  5. v1 current
  6. v1 [diff vs current]
  7. v1 [diff vs current]
  8. v1 [diff vs current]
  9. v1 [diff vs current]

[PATCH 00/14] Fix issues with ARMv6+v6k+v7 kernels

From: Russell King - ARM Linux <hidden>
Date: 2011-02-09 16:32:04
Also in: linux-omap

On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 08:24:21AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Santosh Shilimkar [off-list ref] [110209 01:59]:
quoted
quoted
From: Dave Martin [mailto:dave.martin at linaro.org]

You could also have a "v7+" unified kernel -- i.e., supporting
OMAP3+4+SMP.
This is what we currently do in Linaro, since we're focusing on v7
and above.
This sounds good way forward considering future OMAP architectures
as well.

But I let Tony comment on this idea.
AFAIK these issues will be hopefully sorted out by the time the
next merge window opens. For the -rc cycle, disabling SMP in
config if ARMv6 is selected should do the trick.
That's not soo easy - as we don't know in the Kconfig whether we include
ARMv6 rather than ARMv6K.  It's exactly the same problem I ran into which
inflated the v6v7 patchset.

Maybe the best thing to do is:

config CPU_32v6K
        bool "Support ARM V6K processor extensions" if !SMP
        depends on CPU_V6 || CPU_V7
        default y if SMP && !(ARCH_MX3 || ARCH_OMAP2)

drop the ' && !(ARCH_MX3 || ARCH_OMAP2)' and just let people run into the
resulting undefined instruction traps if they try to run the kernel on
V6 non-K hardware.  Not ideal, but I don't see any other 'simple' solution
to this.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help