From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:12:27 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH] arm64: defconfig: add config fragment for Freescale SoCs In-Reply-To: References: <1460643685-13670-1-git-send-email-stuart.yoder@nxp.com> <20160414170433.GF15182@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20160417181224.GA5495@MBP.local> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 05:10:42PM +0800, Martinez Kristofer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Catalin Marinas > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:21:25AM -0500, Stuart Yoder wrote: > >> The proposal is to allow a chip vendor 1 vendor-specific kconfig fragment > >> to cover all their chips, allowing them to _override_ the default config > >> options in defconfig. One specific issue we have is that due to the ls2080a > >> physical address map, the combination of 4KB pages and 39-bit VA does not > >> allow us to see all our DDR. And, thus we need CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_48=y. > > > > And I'm fine to add this to defconfig. We had a case for Seattle needing > > 48-bit VA but we eventually decoupled the number of levels for idmap and > > swapper. If it can't be addressed in a similar way on ls2080a, we may > > need to increase the VA space to 48-bit. > > Here my suggestion is 48-bit VA will be depended on the CONFIG_ACPI, > IOW, if CONFIG_ACPI > is seleceted, then CONFIG_ARM64_VA_BITS_48 will be selected too. I don't see why 48-bit VA should depend on CONFIG_ACPI, they are unrelated options. Anyway, we are going to enable ACPI in the arm64 defconfig, so you get both. -- Catalin