Reverting ARCH_SUNXI arm64 support(?)
Hi Will, Catalin,
Suzuki reported a build failure with certain (non-defconfig) .configs due to the new ARCH_SUNXI support in 4.6-rc [1].
As unfortunately we couldn't agree on a solution and also the support for the A64/Pine64 is partial in 4.6 anyway, can you please revert:ce3dd55b99b151a90ac1701c6825f2ae2d49b54e ("arm64: Introduce Allwinner SoC config option")
So with this revert we have the arm64 defconfig now selecting useless symbols, it didn't complain, but I was wondering if we should revert the defconfig patch as well then? But this looks like pain :-(
If all this reverting is too much due to conflicts, we might think about going with Suzuki's original one-liner [1], which would be an easy fix - though Olof opposed it back then (in favour of a more involved solution, which is no option for 4.6 anymore).
Regardless of this the plan for the future would be:
1) Send a patch to properly express the dependencies for the sunxi IRQ controllers - this is independent from the arm64 support. I will do this ASAP in hope that it still reaches 4.7.
2) Investigate whether Maxime's new sunxi clock architecture[2] would be a fit for the A64 support.
3) Use the next weeks to rework the support patches and aim for a 4.8-rc merge - depending on the outcome and merge status of 2)
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Andre.
[1]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-March/418175.html
with the thread continuing here:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-April/420326.html
[2]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-May/427839.html
Quoted 1 line · Andre Przywara
Hi Will, Catalin,
Hi Andre,
Quoted 6 lines
Suzuki reported a build failure with certain (non-defconfig) .configs due to the new
ARCH_SUNXIsupport in 4.6-rc [1].
As unfortunately we couldn't agree on a solution and also the support for the A64/Pine64 is partial in 4.6 anyway, can you please revert:ce3dd55b99b151a90ac1701c6825f2ae2d49b54e("arm64: Introduce Allwinner SoC config option")
Given that we (Catalin and I) didn't commit that patch, it seems weird that we should be reverting it. Shouldn't this be handled in arm-soc or via the sunxi subtree?
We're also a week from the merge window, so it doesn't seem like a good time to be hacking at .config/kconfig-related issues.
Will
Hi,
Quoted 12 lines · Will Deacon
Quoted 1 line · Andre Przywara
Hi Will, Catalin,
Hi Andre,
Quoted 6 lines
Suzuki reported a build failure with certain (non-defconfig) .configs due to the new
ARCH_SUNXIsupport in 4.6-rc [1].
As unfortunately we couldn't agree on a solution and also the support for the A64/Pine64 is partial in 4.6 anyway, can you please revert:ce3dd55b99b151a90ac1701c6825f2ae2d49b54e("arm64: Introduce Allwinner SoC config option")
Quoted 6 lines
Given that we (Catalin and I) didn't commit that patch, it seems weird that we should be reverting it. Shouldn't this be handled in arm-soc or via the sunxi subtree?
We're also a week from the merge window, so it doesn't seem like a good time to be hacking at .config/kconfig-related issues.
I agree, that's why I was proposing taking Suzuki's first patch:
arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms +1 -0
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ menu "Platform selection" config ARCH_SUNXI bool "Allwinner sunxi 64-bit SoC Family" + select GENERIC_IRQ_CHIP help This enables support for Allwinner sunxi based SoCs like the A64.
This is what defconfig selects anyway and also the change would be confined to this (new) config option.
Olof, Arnd: would it be an option to take this patch still?
Cheers,
Andre.
Quoted 37 lines · Andre Przywara
Hi,
Quoted 12 lines · Will Deacon
Quoted 1 line · Andre Przywara
Hi Will, Catalin,
Hi Andre,
Quoted 6 lines
Suzuki reported a build failure with certain (non-defconfig) .configs due to the new
ARCH_SUNXIsupport in 4.6-rc [1].
As unfortunately we couldn't agree on a solution and also the support for the A64/Pine64 is partial in 4.6 anyway, can you please revert:ce3dd55b99b151a90ac1701c6825f2ae2d49b54e("arm64: Introduce Allwinner SoC config option")Quoted 6 lines
Given that we (Catalin and I) didn't commit that patch, it seems weird that we should be reverting it. Shouldn't this be handled in arm-soc or via the sunxi subtree?
We're also a week from the merge window, so it doesn't seem like a good time to be hacking at .config/kconfig-related issues.
I agree, that's why I was proposing taking Suzuki's first patch:
arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms +1
-0@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ menu "Platform selection" config ARCH_SUNXI bool "Allwinner sunxi 64-bit SoC Family" + select GENERIC_IRQ_CHIP help This enables support for Allwinner sunxi based SoCs like the A64.
Quoted 4 lines
This is what defconfig selects anyway and also the change would be confined to this (new) config option.
Olof, Arnd: would it be an option to take this patch still?
FWIW, I'd be in favour for such patch as a late patch for 4.6.
We can always fix things up properly in a later patch for 4.7 or 4.8.
Maxime
Signature · 10 lines
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160509/6d3f1d45/attachment.sig>
Quoted 38 lines · Maxime Ripard
Quoted 37 lines · Andre Przywara
Hi,
Quoted 12 lines · Will Deacon
Quoted 1 line · Andre Przywara
Hi Will, Catalin,
Hi Andre,
Quoted 6 lines
Suzuki reported a build failure with certain (non-defconfig) .configs due to the new
ARCH_SUNXIsupport in 4.6-rc [1].
As unfortunately we couldn't agree on a solution and also the support for the A64/Pine64 is partial in 4.6 anyway, can you please revert:ce3dd55b99b151a90ac1701c6825f2ae2d49b54e("arm64: Introduce Allwinner SoC config option")Quoted 6 lines
Given that we (Catalin and I) didn't commit that patch, it seems weird that we should be reverting it. Shouldn't this be handled in arm-soc or via the sunxi subtree?
We're also a week from the merge window, so it doesn't seem like a good time to be hacking at .config/kconfig-related issues.
I agree, that's why I was proposing taking Suzuki's first patch:
arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms +1
-0@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ menu "Platform selection" config ARCH_SUNXI bool "Allwinner sunxi 64-bit SoC Family" + select GENERIC_IRQ_CHIP help This enables support for Allwinner sunxi based SoCs like the A64.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
This is what defconfig selects anyway and also the change would be confined to this (new) config option.
Olof, Arnd: would it be an option to take this patch still?
FWIW, I'd be in favour for such patch as a late patch for 4.6.
We can always fix things up properly in a later patch for 4.7 or 4.8.
+1. Please send said patch to arm at kernel.org and we can apply it (cc Maxime so he can cc) and send up.
-Olof