Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 May 2022 13:46:41 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Add CONFIG_{NON,}PORTABLE | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 05:47:33 PDT (-0700), Niklas.Cassel@wdc.com wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 06:40:10PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> >> >> The RISC-V port has collected a handful of options that are >> fundamentally non-portable. To prevent users from shooting themselves >> in the foot, hide them all behind a config entry that explicitly calls >> out that non-portable binaries may be produced. >> >> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com> >> >> --- >> >> Changes since v1: >> >> * Fix a bunch of spelling mistakes. >> * Move NONPORTABLE under the "Platform type" sub-heading. >> * Fix the rv32i dependency. >> --- >> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig >> index 5adcbd9b5e88..3d8eb44eb889 100644 >> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig >> @@ -213,6 +213,21 @@ source "arch/riscv/Kconfig.erratas" >> >> menu "Platform type" >> >> +config NONPORTABLE >> + bool "Allow configurations that result in non-portable kernels" >> + help >> + RISC-V kernel binaries are compatible between all known systems >> + whenever possible, but there are some use cases that can only be >> + satisfied by configurations that result in kernel binaries that are >> + not portable between systems. >> + >> + Selecting N does not guarantee kernels will be portable to all knows > > nit: s/knows/known ?
Thanks. Turns out I've got a bit of an issue here and this results in the defconfigs breaking, so I've got ahead and sent a v3 that includes the necessary bits to make those work along with this fixed up.
> Kind regards, > Niklas
| |