From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34345C433DF for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:33:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12914207F7 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:33:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726292AbgFLHdu convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:33:50 -0400 Received: from relay11.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.231]:42957 "EHLO relay11.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726287AbgFLHdu (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:33:50 -0400 Received: from xps13 (unknown [91.224.148.103]) (Authenticated sender: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com) by relay11.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70333100007; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 07:33:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:33:45 +0200 From: Miquel Raynal To: =?UTF-8?B?w4FsdmFybyBGZXJuw6FuZGV6?= Rojas Cc: Florian Fainelli , tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, richard@nod.at, vigneshr@ti.com, Jonas Gorski , linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: parsers: bcm63xx: simplify CFE detection Message-ID: <20200612093345.511f6d45@xps13> In-Reply-To: References: <20200608094053.3381512-1-noltari@gmail.com> <20200608160649.3717152-1-noltari@gmail.com> <20200611095540.250184d2@xps13> <779D37C7-58CB-49AF-8739-C34295B86FC4@gmail.com> <715b0947-f4dd-0c04-5c52-5da06c04d665@gmail.com> <7DC0E349-1319-47FE-8565-9B30C190EACB@gmail.com> <20200612090252.02581c21@xps13> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-mips-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org Hi Álvaro, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:30:27 +0200: > Hi Miquèl, > > > El 12 jun 2020, a las 9:02, Miquel Raynal escribió: > > > > Hi Álvaro, > > > > Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote on Thu, 11 Jun 2020 > > 18:14:20 +0200: > > > >> Hi Florian, > >> > >>> El 11 jun 2020, a las 17:42, Florian Fainelli escribió: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 6/11/2020 8:16 AM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote: > >>>> Hi Miquel, > >>>> > >>>>> El 11 jun 2020, a las 9:55, Miquel Raynal escribió: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Álvaro, > >>>>> > >>>>> Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote on Mon, 8 Jun 2020 > >>>>> 18:06:49 +0200: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Instead of trying to parse CFE version string, which is customized by some > >>>>>> vendors, let's just check that "CFE1" was passed on argument 3. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> v2: use CFE_EPTSEAL definition and avoid using an additional funtion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c | 29 ++++------------------------- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c b/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c > >>>>>> index 78f90c6c18fd..493a75b2f266 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c > >>>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@ > >>>>>> #include > >>>>>> #include > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +#include > >>>>>> +#include > >>>>> > >>>>> Are you sure both includes are needed? > >>>> > >>>> asm/bootinfo.h is needed for fw_arg3 and asm/fw/cfe/cfe_api.h is needed for CFE_EPTSEAL. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think it is a good habit to include asm/ headers, are you sure > >>>>> there is not another header doing it just fine? > >>>> > >>>> Both are needed unless you want to add another definition of CFE_EPTSEAL value. > >>>> There are currently two CFE magic definitions, the one in asm/fw/cfe/cfe_api.h and another one in bcm47xxpart.c: > >>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/mips/include/asm/fw/cfe/cfe_api.h#L28 > >>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm47xxpart.c#L33 > >>> > >>> The caveat with that approach is that this reduces the compilation > >>> surface to MIPS and BMIPS_GENERIC and BCM63XX only, which is a bit > >>> small. If we could move the CFE definitions to a shared header, and > >>> consolidate the value used by bcm47xxpart.c as well, that would allow us > >>> to build the bcm63xxpart.c file with COMPILE_TEST on other > >>> architectures. This does not really have functional value, but for > >>> maintainers like Miquel, it allows them to quickly test their entire > >>> drivers/mtd/ directory. > >> > >> I don’t think fw_arg3 available on non mips archs, is it? > >> I’m happy to move it to a shared header (which would be a good location for this?), but if I’m right it would still be restricted to MIPS. > > > > Restricting a definition to MIPS, even if it makes sense for you is > > very limiting for me. I need to be able to build as much drivers as I > > can from my laptop and verify they at least compile correctly. If I need > > a MIPS toolchain, an ARC toolchain, a PowerPC, an ARM, an ARM64 and > > whatever other funky toolchain to do just that in X steps: it's very > > painful. We have been adding COMPILE_TEST dependencies on as much > > drivers as we could and we want to continue moving forward. Using such > > include would need to drop the COMPILE_TEST condition from Kconfig and > > this is not something I am willing to do. > > I totally understand and agree with your point, but I still think that there could be a solution which would be valid for both of us. What do you suggest? > > > > > Thanks for your understanding :) > > The current way of detecting CFE isn’t the proper one. > Thank you for understanding that too. Of course, I'm not saying I don't want this change, I'm just saying we should find another way to handle it, the below idea is totally fine by me. Thanks, Miquèl