[EXT] Re: [PATCH] binder: let ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT be selectable on 32bit ARM

[jszhang@marvell.com (Jisheng Zhang)]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:56:07 -0700 John Stultz  wrote:

> External Email
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:51:08 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> >  
> >> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:03:05PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:  
> >> > As noted in commit d0bdff0db809 ("staging: Fix build issues with new
> >> > binder API"), we can add back the choice for 32bit ARM "once a 64bit
> >> > __get_user_asm_* implementation is merged." Commit e38361d032f1 ("ARM:
> >> > 8091/2: add get_user() support for 8 byte types") has added the
> >> > support, so it's time to let ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT be selectable on
> >> > 32bit ARM  
> >>
> >> Ok, but:
> >>  
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/android/Kconfig | 2 +-
> >> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/android/Kconfig b/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >> > index 832e885349b1..aca5dc30b97b 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >> > +++ b/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >> > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ config ANDROID_BINDER_DEVICES
> >> >       therefore logically separated from the other devices.
> >> >
> >> >  config ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT
> >> > -   bool
> >> > +   bool "Use old (Android 4.4 and earlier) 32-bit binder API"
> >> >     depends on !64BIT && ANDROID_BINDER_IPC  
> >>
> >> You don't actually change the depends line :(
> >>
> >> Please fix up, and test it, and then resend.  
> >
> > IHOM, the dependency is correct: 64bit platforms don't support
> > ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT. What do you think?  
> 
> I think this indicates the commit message is unclear.
> 
> Part of it is that the config is inverted from the description. The
> patch doesn't enable the 32bit legacy binder ABI on 32bit systems, it
> just allows the option to be unselected, so that the 64bit ABI will be
> used on 32bit systems.
> 
> Conceptually I don't have an objection to the change (though maybe try
> to rework the commit message), but I don't have anything to actually
> test it on right now, so I'm hesitant to ack it.
> 

I have tested it on Marvell Berlin 32bit platform: the 64bit binder IPC
works fine on our 32bit platform.