lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] mtd: parsers: bcm63xx: simplify CFE detection
From
Date
Hi Miquèl,

> El 12 jun 2020, a las 9:33, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> escribió:
>
> Hi Álvaro,
>
> Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 12 Jun 2020
> 09:30:27 +0200:
>
>> Hi Miquèl,
>>
>>> El 12 jun 2020, a las 9:02, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> escribió:
>>>
>>> Hi Álvaro,
>>>
>>> Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@gmail.com> wrote on Thu, 11 Jun 2020
>>> 18:14:20 +0200:
>>>
>>>> Hi Florian,
>>>>
>>>>> El 11 jun 2020, a las 17:42, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/11/2020 8:16 AM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Miquel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> El 11 jun 2020, a las 9:55, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> escribió:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Álvaro,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@gmail.com> wrote on Mon, 8 Jun 2020
>>>>>>> 18:06:49 +0200:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Instead of trying to parse CFE version string, which is customized by some
>>>>>>>> vendors, let's just check that "CFE1" was passed on argument 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> v2: use CFE_EPTSEAL definition and avoid using an additional funtion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c | 29 ++++-------------------------
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c b/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c
>>>>>>>> index 78f90c6c18fd..493a75b2f266 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm63xxpart.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@
>>>>>>>> #include <linux/mtd/partitions.h>
>>>>>>>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +#include <asm/bootinfo.h>
>>>>>>>> +#include <asm/fw/cfe/cfe_api.h>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you sure both includes are needed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> asm/bootinfo.h is needed for fw_arg3 and asm/fw/cfe/cfe_api.h is needed for CFE_EPTSEAL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it is a good habit to include asm/ headers, are you sure
>>>>>>> there is not another header doing it just fine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both are needed unless you want to add another definition of CFE_EPTSEAL value.
>>>>>> There are currently two CFE magic definitions, the one in asm/fw/cfe/cfe_api.h and another one in bcm47xxpart.c:
>>>>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/mips/include/asm/fw/cfe/cfe_api.h#L28
>>>>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/mtd/parsers/bcm47xxpart.c#L33
>>>>>
>>>>> The caveat with that approach is that this reduces the compilation
>>>>> surface to MIPS and BMIPS_GENERIC and BCM63XX only, which is a bit
>>>>> small. If we could move the CFE definitions to a shared header, and
>>>>> consolidate the value used by bcm47xxpart.c as well, that would allow us
>>>>> to build the bcm63xxpart.c file with COMPILE_TEST on other
>>>>> architectures. This does not really have functional value, but for
>>>>> maintainers like Miquel, it allows them to quickly test their entire
>>>>> drivers/mtd/ directory.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t think fw_arg3 available on non mips archs, is it?
>>>> I’m happy to move it to a shared header (which would be a good location for this?), but if I’m right it would still be restricted to MIPS.
>>>
>>> Restricting a definition to MIPS, even if it makes sense for you is
>>> very limiting for me. I need to be able to build as much drivers as I
>>> can from my laptop and verify they at least compile correctly. If I need
>>> a MIPS toolchain, an ARC toolchain, a PowerPC, an ARM, an ARM64 and
>>> whatever other funky toolchain to do just that in X steps: it's very
>>> painful. We have been adding COMPILE_TEST dependencies on as much
>>> drivers as we could and we want to continue moving forward. Using such
>>> include would need to drop the COMPILE_TEST condition from Kconfig and
>>> this is not something I am willing to do.
>>
>> I totally understand and agree with your point, but I still think that there could be a solution which would be valid for both of us.
>
> What do you suggest?

I’ve just sent v3 with my suggestion.
If this isn’t valid then I’m out of ideas...

>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your understanding :)
>>
>> The current way of detecting CFE isn’t the proper one.
>> Thank you for understanding that too.
>
> Of course, I'm not saying I don't want this change, I'm just saying we
> should find another way to handle it, the below idea is totally fine by
> me.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl

Regards,
Álvaro.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-12 09:37    [W:0.475 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site