From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregory.clement@free-electrons.com (Gregory CLEMENT) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:25:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: compressed: discard ksym/kcrctab input section In-Reply-To: (Ard Biesheuvel's message of "Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:03:53 +0100") References: <20170908153143.27279-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <87d163kt0m.fsf@free-electrons.com> <20171004124320.GP20805@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <874lr4d8gm.fsf@free-electrons.com> <20171012094517.GB20805@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Message-ID: <878tg56dtn.fsf@free-electrons.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Ard, On jeu., oct. 12 2017, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 12 October 2017 at 10:45, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:24:57AM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >>> Hi Ard, >>> >>> Can we move forward to fix the booting problem ? >>> >>> What about amending your commit log with this new information and then >>> submit it to Russell patch system? >> >> Well, I think there's a choice that needs to be made between this >> approach and Arnd's approach. >> >> I'm not all that thrilled with the need to add explicit alignment to >> data that is inherently a byte stream, and that invariably results in >> unaligned data words even if you do align the start of it. That >> sounds to me very much like a hack rather than a proper solution. >> So, right now I'm leaning more towards Arnd's solution than Ard's >> from what's been said in this thread. >> > > I agree that the struct type unaligned accessors are the best choice > for ARM in any case, given that it will also prevent hitting the > alignment fixup handler in the kernel unnecessarily. > >> However, I don't recall Arnd's patch, it's probably buried deep in >> my mailbox. >> > > Well, unless you are considering changing the unaligned accessors from > access_ok.h to le_struct.h as a bugfix, I think we need both patches. We will soon reach v4.14-rc6 and the Armada XP and Armada 370 still not boot. I also didn't see your patch in rmk patch system. Waiting for you find a agreement an other option is to remove CONFIG_EFI from multi_v7_defconfig as I don't really see any armv7 base board using EFI. Thanks, Gregory -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com