From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A3111007D5 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:10:48 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <1329513033.3980.1.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/85xx: fix problem that prevents PHYS_64BIT from configurable From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Tabi Timur-B04825 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:10:33 +1100 In-Reply-To: References: <1329394210-1014-1-git-send-email-leoli@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , Li Yang-R58472 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 16:22 +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > Was this a Freescale internal decision, or is this a generic 85xx > decision? > > For the record, I'm in favor in leaving out support for 32-bit address > map in the upstream kernel, and having it be an option on the SDK > only. However, in order to do that, we cannot have "select > PHYS_64BIT" in the Kconfigs. It needs to be in the defconfigs > instead. Putting it in the defconfig will eliminate the need to have > it in every Kconfig block, so I think that's an improvement. > > Then the SDK can include a defconfig that does not have PHYS_64BIT > defined. And the SDK can include 32-bit U-Boots and 32-bit device > trees for any board where Freescale determines there is a need. > > I think Leo's patch simplifies things for everyone. Sorry, I fail to see how... it basically makes all those boards non-functional even when enabled... What's wrong with the current scheme ? Ben.