From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 20:48:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: nommu: re-enable use of vexpress without ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM In-Reply-To: <50EDD588.3040603@gmail.com> References: <1357755328-17075-1-git-send-email-jonathan.austin@arm.com> <201301091843.48942.arnd@arndb.de> <201301092022.49130.arnd@arndb.de> <50EDD588.3040603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130109204804.GS3931@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:39:36PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On 01/09/2013 02:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 09 January 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > >>> On a related topic, I still think we should fix ARCH_MULTI_V7 not > >>> to select ARCH_VEXPRESS unconditionally and come up with a better > >>> way to avoid having an empty platform list to make 'allnoconfig' > >>> still work. > >> > >> The virtual guest platform support that Will and Marc did is small > >> enough that it could always be selected in place of vexpress. > > > > But that only helps when ARMv7 is selected, unless we want to build > > it only for ARMv4, v5 or v6 kernels. > > > > Besides, the only reason we can't have a kernel without any platform > > selected is that the linker script has code in it to intentionally > > barf on that because it's guaranteed not to boot on any hardware. > > > > If we decide that building an allnoconfig without any platform > > is actually ok, we could just as well rip out that error statement. > > > > That patch is already posted, but Russell doesn't like it as you can > have a kernel that doesn't boot. You don't like the allno and randconfig > failures, so we're stuck. I think there are dozens of config options > that will make you not boot on any given platform, so failing to boot > because you did not select your machine is a non-issue. What I actually suggested is that we should be aiming for the DT side of things to get to the point where DT is just another _single_ platform as far as that code goes, and that DT should describe the hardware sufficiently well that we don't have multiple machine_desc things to select via DT - so a DT kernel would have exactly one machine_desc (or maybe even zero! - with the linker script check conditional on !CONFIG_OF) That then gets rid of the issue entirely.