From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Fix issues with ARMv6+v6k+v7 kernels Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:32:04 +0000 Message-ID: <20110209163204.GB11460@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20110117192050.GE23331@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <0557426516de482c1769a50fa0b5f17a@mail.gmail.com> <20110208164747.GD6188@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <78d0134576ace6be5874871076cf0c10@mail.gmail.com> <20110209003537.GQ20795@atomide.com> <54f225541194205f01fe9f03b5110d16@mail.gmail.com> <80a27c86473cf29a9fa5e68aa29eef46@mail.gmail.com> <20110209162421.GU20795@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:36605 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753618Ab1BIQcV (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:32:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110209162421.GU20795@atomide.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Santosh Shilimkar , Dave Martin , Nicolas Pitre , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 08:24:21AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Santosh Shilimkar [110209 01:59]: > > > From: Dave Martin [mailto:dave.martin@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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:32:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 00/14] Fix issues with ARMv6+v6k+v7 kernels In-Reply-To: <20110209162421.GU20795@atomide.com> References: <20110117192050.GE23331@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <0557426516de482c1769a50fa0b5f17a@mail.gmail.com> <20110208164747.GD6188@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <78d0134576ace6be5874871076cf0c10@mail.gmail.com> <20110209003537.GQ20795@atomide.com> <54f225541194205f01fe9f03b5110d16@mail.gmail.com> <80a27c86473cf29a9fa5e68aa29eef46@mail.gmail.com> <20110209162421.GU20795@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20110209163204.GB11460@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 08:24:21AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Santosh Shilimkar [110209 01:59]: > > > 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.