On 3/14/24 01:56, Yangyu Chen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the review comments. After thinking about it for a while, >> I think we don't need to change it as we have changed the help >> message which deleted the "K210". And the dts on k210.dtsi shows >> mmu-type is riscv.none, I think if someone noticed this would know >> why it fails to boot on the S-Mode MMU Kernel on K210. The only >> special thing for ARCH_CANAAN is that a loader.bin will be built >> when M-Mode is on arch/riscv/Makefile. However, Canaan has no other >> M-Mode chips except for K210. So I think we don't need to change >> it. You completely lost me here. I do not understand what you are trying to say. >> Another reason is that SOC_CANAAN for K210 is somehow hard to change. >> If we continue using SOC_CANAAN for K210 but not for other Canaan >> SoCs such as K230, it will cause some confusion to users. If we >> rename SOC_CANAAN to SOC_CANAAN_K210, it will change many drivers >> in many subsystems like my patch v5 [1]. So I don't think we need >> to fix it. >> >> >> If we don't change it, A concern for this is that some drivers for >> K210 will be built when SOC_CANAAN=y and if we add this to defconfig, >> all riscv builds will also build some K210 drivers even on MMU. But >> I think this will not be a problem just need some memory/storage >> for a slightly bigger kernel. Also, we will enable some new configs >> in defconfig when a new soc gets supported, it's normal for K210 >> SoC drivers. >> >> Thus, I think we don't need to change it. If you have some other >> opinions, please let me know. 1) Rename SOC_CANAAN to SOC_CANAAN_K210 and use that for any conditional code or driver selection that is specific to the K210, which is what's done now. 2) Create a "new" SOC_CANAAN config and make SOC_CANAAN_K210 depend on it and on !MMU You could also add SOC_CANAAN_K230 if needed and make it depend on SOC_CANAAN && MMU. With that, dirvers common to both the K210 and K230 can easilly be selected and selecting SOC_CANAAN will end up either building for the K230 or the K210, depending on MMU being set or not. That's my 2 cents. Feel free to ignore. I am not involved that much with riscv these days and I am far too busy with other kernel areas to be of any help. But I really think that allowing building the K210 when MMU is enabled and "hoping that the user understand his mistake" is not a great approach. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
