lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] blackfin: Kconfig: Let PLL_BYPASS and MPU depend on some BF_REV of BF533
Am 04.04.2015 um 23:48 schrieb Chen Gang:
> On 4/4/15 06:59, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> For allmodconfig, it uses BF533 which will cause 3 issues for common
>>> checking:
>>>
>>> - The first 2 issues are about PLL_BYPASS, it needs BF_REV_0_6 (which
>>> just match the compiler's output for __SILICON_REVISION__).
>>>
>>> - The last issue is about MPU, it needs BF_REV_0_5 or BF_REV_0_6 (which
>>> just match the compiler's output for __SILICON_REVISION__).
>>>
>>> The related error with allmodconfig:
>>>
>>> CC arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.o
>>> arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:24:3: error: #error "Sclk value selected is less than minimum. Please select a proper value for SCLK multiplier"
>>> # error "Sclk value selected is less than minimum. Please select a proper value for SCLK multiplier"
>>> ^
>>> arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:28:3: error: #error "ANOMALY 05000273, please make sure CCLK is at least 2x SCLK"
>>> # error "ANOMALY 05000273, please make sure CCLK is at least 2x SCLK"
>>> ^
>>> arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:51:3: error: #error the MPU will not function safely while Anomaly 05000263 applies
>>> # error the MPU will not function safely while Anomaly 05000263 applies
>>> ^
>>>
>>> config PLL_BYPASS
>>> bool "Bypass PLL"
>>> - depends on BFIN_KERNEL_CLOCK && (!BF60x)
>>> + depends on BFIN_KERNEL_CLOCK && (!BF60x) && ((!BF533) || BF_REV_0_6)
>>> default n
>>>
>>> config CLKIN_HALF
>>> @@ -1112,6 +1112,7 @@ endchoice
>>> comment "Memory Protection Unit"
>>> config MPU
>>> bool "Enable the memory protection unit"
>>> + depends on (!BF533) || BF_REV_0_6 || BF_REV_0_5
>>> default n
>>> help
>>> Use the processor's MPU to protect applications from accessing
>>
>> This answers my question wrt. allmodconfig. ;)
>> I'm not sure if this is the correct way. Isn't this the reason why we
>> have COMPILE_TEST?
>>
>
> For me, COMPILE_TEST is for compiling test without the related hardware
> supports, but the code should no any logical issues firstly (at least,
> COMPILE_TEST itself should not generate additional logical bugs).
>
> In our case, I guess the first 2 issues are about logical issues (not
> hardware supporting issues), so I guess, it is not suitable to use
> COMPILE_TEST to bypass them.

So you have a blackfin board and successfully booted such a allmodconfig kernel on it?

Thanks,
//richard


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-05 00:01    [W:0.047 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site