lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: add support DM&P devices
From

El 13/10/2021 a las 16:57, Borislav Petkov escribió:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 06:22:46PM +0200, Marcos Del Sol Vives wrote:
>> +config CPU_SUP_DMP_32
>> + default y
>> + bool "Support DM&P processors" if PROCESSOR_SELECT
>> + depends on !64BIT
>
> You mean
>
> depends on X86_32
>
> ?
>
> Wikipedia says those things are 32-bit.
>

I used here !64BIT because it is what CPU_SUP_TRANSMETA_32 and
CPU_SUP_UMC_32 (the only other two 32-bit-only processors on
Kconfig.cpu) are also using.

Using X86_32 makes total sense, in fact I originally used that, but for
consistency I changed it to !64BIT to match existing flags.

Should I change it then? Should I also change the other two, possibly in
a different patch?

>> + help
>> + This enables detection, tunings and quirks for DM&P processors
>> +
>> + You need this enabled if you want your kernel to run on a
>> + DM&P CPU. Disabling this option on other types of CPUs
>
> So I'm not sure about the nomenclature: those CPUs are called Vortex86
> and DM&P is simply the next owner of the IP:
>
> "Vortex86 previously belonged to SiS, which got the basic design from
> Rise Technology.[1] SiS sold it to DM&P Electronics[2] in Taiwan."
>
> So I'm thinking we should call everything Vortex, the file vortex.c, the
> vendor define X86_VENDOR_VORTEX and so on.

Makes total sense. Will change it for v2.

>> + makes the kernel a tiny bit smaller. Disabling it on a DM&P
>> + CPU might render the kernel unbootable.
>
> Why unbootable? It looks like those are perfect clones: "No special init
> required for DM&P processors." it says in the patch. :)
>

I used that text because it's what every other x86 processor flag is
also using, even those that also do not do any special initialization.

For example, the CPU_SUP_UMC_32 flag also has the same warning, yet
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/umc.c reads "UMC chips appear to be only either 386
or 486, so no special init takes place". I thus assumed this was
standard text, in case at some point an special init is required.

Do you think it should be then reworded, or should I keep it to mantain
consistency with other existing flag descriptions?

Greetings and thanks for your time,
Marcos

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-14 20:31    [W:0.046 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site