lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] blackfin: Kconfig: Let PLL_BYPASS and MPU depend on some BF_REV of BF533
On 4/4/15 06:59, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For allmodconfig, it uses BF533 which will cause 3 issues for common
>> checking:
>>
>> - The first 2 issues are about PLL_BYPASS, it needs BF_REV_0_6 (which
>> just match the compiler's output for __SILICON_REVISION__).
>>
>> - The last issue is about MPU, it needs BF_REV_0_5 or BF_REV_0_6 (which
>> just match the compiler's output for __SILICON_REVISION__).
>>
>> The related error with allmodconfig:
>>
>> CC arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.o
>> arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:24:3: error: #error "Sclk value selected is less than minimum. Please select a proper value for SCLK multiplier"
>> # error "Sclk value selected is less than minimum. Please select a proper value for SCLK multiplier"
>> ^
>> arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:28:3: error: #error "ANOMALY 05000273, please make sure CCLK is at least 2x SCLK"
>> # error "ANOMALY 05000273, please make sure CCLK is at least 2x SCLK"
>> ^
>> arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:51:3: error: #error the MPU will not function safely while Anomaly 05000263 applies
>> # error the MPU will not function safely while Anomaly 05000263 applies
>> ^
>>
>> config PLL_BYPASS
>> bool "Bypass PLL"
>> - depends on BFIN_KERNEL_CLOCK && (!BF60x)
>> + depends on BFIN_KERNEL_CLOCK && (!BF60x) && ((!BF533) || BF_REV_0_6)
>> default n
>>
>> config CLKIN_HALF
>> @@ -1112,6 +1112,7 @@ endchoice
>> comment "Memory Protection Unit"
>> config MPU
>> bool "Enable the memory protection unit"
>> + depends on (!BF533) || BF_REV_0_6 || BF_REV_0_5
>> default n
>> help
>> Use the processor's MPU to protect applications from accessing
>
> This answers my question wrt. allmodconfig. ;)
> I'm not sure if this is the correct way. Isn't this the reason why we
> have COMPILE_TEST?
>

For me, COMPILE_TEST is for compiling test without the related hardware
supports, but the code should no any logical issues firstly (at least,
COMPILE_TEST itself should not generate additional logical bugs).

In our case, I guess the first 2 issues are about logical issues (not
hardware supporting issues), so I guess, it is not suitable to use
COMPILE_TEST to bypass them.


Thanks.
--
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-05 00:01    [W:0.069 / U:1.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site