Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Oct 2021 18:29:12 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: add support DM&P devices | From | Marcos Del Sol Vives <> |
| |
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
| |