From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: RE: Broken device trees for exynos in linux-next Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 19:40:18 +0900 Message-ID: <159201ce9b36$2a513f30$7ef3bd90$@org> References: <13b101ce9a14$2cebd700$86c38500$@org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout1.samsung.com ([203.254.224.24]:18190 "EHLO mailout1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751624Ab3HQKkU (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Aug 2013 06:40:20 -0400 Received: from epcpsbgr1.samsung.com (u141.gpu120.samsung.co.kr [203.254.230.141]) by mailout1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 (7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MRO008CC8B67B10@mailout1.samsung.com> for linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 19:40:18 +0900 (KST) In-reply-to: Content-language: ko Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: 'Olof Johansson' Cc: 'Mark Brown' , 'Arnd Bergmann' , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > I think, maybe we discussed about that? :) current exynos_defconfig > cannot > > support exynos5440 because of LPAE and I remember we decided LPAE and > > non-LPAE should be separated. So as I commented before, > exynos5440_defconfig > > is needed. If you have any concerns, please let me know. > > Having a SoC-specific defconfig makes no sense. You can run with LPAE > enabled on A15 and A7-based systems even if they don't have enough > memory to need it. > Hmm, I'm not sure. If so, I'm wondering why LPAE is implemented with 'ifdef' and why Red Hat and Canonical provide PAE enabled kernel separately in x86... > Really, what we want is to just turn on the LPAE functionality and > keep everything else common. Forking into two defconfigs seems like > the wrong idea, even if we did discuss it before. Having something > like a config fragment to include would make more sense, since that > could be shared across all platforms (and apply with > multi_v7_defconfig for those who want to run that on LPAE as well). > If we could make LPAE enabled defconfig for all ARM platforms, I'm fine. I think your concern is creating SoC specific defconfig and I agree with you. But I'm not sure how we can support LPAE enabled defconfig for ARM platforms. > Or, you know, just have your build script enable it without having an > in-tree config fragment. That'd work too. > I don't think so because the defconfig will be used by customer for their product so I should provide some defconfig for exynos5440 in mainline... > The main case where this isn't sufficient is on platforms where _all_ > memory sits above 4G, since you can't boot a non-LPAE kernel on those > at all. It seems like 5440 has memory starting at 2GB so it's not one > of those. > 5440 has 8GB memory by default. So let me know which way is fine to us? - Kukjin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene@kernel.org (Kukjin Kim) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 19:40:18 +0900 Subject: Broken device trees for exynos in linux-next In-Reply-To: References: <13b101ce9a14$2cebd700$86c38500$@org> Message-ID: <159201ce9b36$2a513f30$7ef3bd90$@org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > I think, maybe we discussed about that? :) current exynos_defconfig > cannot > > support exynos5440 because of LPAE and I remember we decided LPAE and > > non-LPAE should be separated. So as I commented before, > exynos5440_defconfig > > is needed. If you have any concerns, please let me know. > > Having a SoC-specific defconfig makes no sense. You can run with LPAE > enabled on A15 and A7-based systems even if they don't have enough > memory to need it. > Hmm, I'm not sure. If so, I'm wondering why LPAE is implemented with 'ifdef' and why Red Hat and Canonical provide PAE enabled kernel separately in x86... > Really, what we want is to just turn on the LPAE functionality and > keep everything else common. Forking into two defconfigs seems like > the wrong idea, even if we did discuss it before. Having something > like a config fragment to include would make more sense, since that > could be shared across all platforms (and apply with > multi_v7_defconfig for those who want to run that on LPAE as well). > If we could make LPAE enabled defconfig for all ARM platforms, I'm fine. I think your concern is creating SoC specific defconfig and I agree with you. But I'm not sure how we can support LPAE enabled defconfig for ARM platforms. > Or, you know, just have your build script enable it without having an > in-tree config fragment. That'd work too. > I don't think so because the defconfig will be used by customer for their product so I should provide some defconfig for exynos5440 in mainline... > The main case where this isn't sufficient is on platforms where _all_ > memory sits above 4G, since you can't boot a non-LPAE kernel on those > at all. It seems like 5440 has memory starting at 2GB so it's not one > of those. > 5440 has 8GB memory by default. So let me know which way is fine to us? - Kukjin