Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Date | Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:26:49 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 3/9] ARM: stm32: prepare stm32 family to welcome armv7 architecture |
| |
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com> wrote: > > > On 12/18/2017 09:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@st.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com> >>> >>> This patch prepares the STM32 machine for the integration of Cortex-A >>> based microprocessor (MPU), on top of the existing Cortex-M >>> microcontroller family (MCU). Since both MCUs and MPUs are sharing >>> common hardware blocks we can keep using ARCH_STM32 flag for most of >>> them. If a hardware block is specific to one family we can use either >>> ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M or ARCH_MULTI_V7 flag. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com> >> >> >> Looks good overall. Two more small comments: >> >> >>> >>> +if ARCH_STM32 >>> + >>> config MACH_STM32F429 >>> - bool "STMicrolectronics STM32F429" >>> - depends on ARCH_STM32 >>> + bool "STMicroelectronics STM32F429" >>> + depends on ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M >>> default y >> >> >> Instead of the explicit dependency for each board, I'd leave the >> surrounding >> 'if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M'. I think you had in v1. > > > As you suggest, I follow mach-at91 example. > The point is on "depends on ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M" ? > You prefer this way: > config MACH_STM32F429 > bool "STMicroelectronics STM32F429" if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M > default y >
No, that would be wrong, that way you would always enable MACH_STM32F429 when ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M is turned off, which is exactly the wrong way round. What I meant is
if ARCH_STM32
if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M
config MACH_STM32F429 bool "STMicrolectronics STM32F429"
config MACH_STM32... ...
endif # ARMv7-M
if ARCH_MULTI_V7
config MACH_STM32... ...
endif # ARMv7-A
endif # STM32
Arnd
| |