From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:51:54 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: nommu: re-enable use of vexpress without ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM In-Reply-To: <20130109204804.GS3931@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> 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> <20130109204804.GS3931@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <50EE3ADA.2070100@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/09/2013 02:48 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > 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. I agree completely. I look at mach-highbank (and mach-virt) as what else needs to be done in terms of refactoring or moving to DT. That's certainly a long term goal, but what is the short term solution? Rob