lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [22/26] MIPS: generic: Introduce generic DT-based board support
From
Date
On 11/20/2017 02:25 AM, James Hogan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 07:43:25PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 04:37:21PM +0100, Paul Burton wrote:
>>> Introduce a "generic" platform, which aims to be board-agnostic by
>>> making use of device trees passed by the boot protocol defined in the
>>> MIPS UHI (Universal Hosting Interface) specification. Provision is made
>>> for supporting boards which use a legacy boot protocol that can't be
>>> changed, but adding support for such boards or any others is left to
>>> followon patches.
>>>
>>> Right now the built kernels expect to be loaded to 0x80100000, ie. in
>>> kseg0. This is fine for the vast majority of MIPS platforms, but
>>> nevertheless it would be good to remove this limitation in the future by
>>> mapping the kernel via the TLB such that it can be loaded anywhere & map
>>> itself appropriately.
>>>
>>> Configuration is handled by dynamically generating configs using
>>> scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh, somewhat similar to the way powerpc
>>> makes use of it. This allows for variations upon the configuration, eg.
>>> differing architecture revisions or subsets of driver support for
>>> differing boards, to be handled without having a large number of
>>> defconfig files.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>
>>
>> Guess it is known that this patch causes failures when building
>> "allmodconfig" on test systems such as 0day; it was reported by 0day
>> some two months ago. nevertheless, the patch found its way into mainline
>> without fix. Does anyone care, or should I simply disable "allmodconfig"
>> test builds for mips ?
>
> Hi Guenter,
>
> I can't find any emails from 0day in relation to this patch (I've also
> dug about on the kbuild-all archives without success). Could you link to
> or quote the build failure you're referring to.
>
> Thanks
> James
>

It was much older than two months, actually.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/15/33

Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-20 15:03    [W:0.085 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site