linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Kconfig: microMIPS and SmartMIPS are mutually exclusiv

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Kconfig: microMIPS and SmartMIPS are mutually exclusive
From: Markos Chandras <Markos.Chandras@imgtec.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:45:38 +0100
Cc: <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
In-reply-to: <20140603093434.GQ17197@linux-mips.org>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1401785177-7904-1-git-send-email-markos.chandras@imgtec.com> <20140603093434.GQ17197@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
On 06/03/2014 10:34 AM, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:46:17AM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> 
>> Warning: the 32-bit microMIPS architecture does not support the `smartmips'
>> extension
>> arch/mips/kernel/entry.S:90: Error: unrecognized opcode `mtlhx $24'
>> [...]
>> arch/mips/kernel/entry.S:109: Error: unrecognized opcode `mtlhx $24'
>>
>> Link: https://dmz-portal.mips.com/bugz/show_bug.cgi?id=1021
>> Reviewed-by: Steven J. Hill <Steven.Hill@imgtec.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Markos Chandras <markos.chandras@imgtec.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/mips/Kconfig | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/Kconfig b/arch/mips/Kconfig
>> index 2fe8e60..ffde3d6 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/mips/Kconfig
>> @@ -2063,7 +2063,7 @@ config ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
>>         def_bool 64BIT_PHYS_ADDR
>>  
>>  config CPU_HAS_SMARTMIPS
>> -    depends on SYS_SUPPORTS_SMARTMIPS
>> +    depends on SYS_SUPPORTS_SMARTMIPS && !CPU_MICROMIPS
>>      bool "Support for the SmartMIPS ASE"
>>      help
>>        SmartMIPS is a extension of the MIPS32 architecture aimed at
> 
> From a user's perspective that's a bit quirky; a user has to first
> disable CPU_MICROMIPS before he can enable CPU_HAS_SMARTMIPS.  So I
> think this should become a choice statement.
> 
>   Ralf
> 
James (now on CC) suggested the same thing and I told him that choice
statements make sense for symbols that are somehow related. For example
SMVP or SMTC or no-MT. In this case, these symbols totally different so
in my opinion a choice symbol will be rather confusing. But I will not
object. Whatever works best.

-- 
markos

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>