On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 13:48:47 -0500 Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:57 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:56 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:51:08 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:03:05PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> >>>> > As noted in commit d0bdff0db809 ("staging: Fix build issues with new
> >>>> > binder API"), we can add back the choice for 32bit ARM "once a 64bit
> >>>> > __get_user_asm_* implementation is merged." Commit e38361d032f1 ("ARM:
> >>>> > 8091/2: add get_user() support for 8 byte types") has added the
> >>>> > support, so it's time to let ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT be selectable on
> >>>> > 32bit ARM
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, but:
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> > ---
> >>>> > drivers/android/Kconfig | 2 +-
> >>>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>> >
> >>>> > diff --git a/drivers/android/Kconfig b/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >>>> > index 832e885349b1..aca5dc30b97b 100644
> >>>> > --- a/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >>>> > +++ b/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >>>> > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ config ANDROID_BINDER_DEVICES
> >>>> > therefore logically separated from the other devices.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > config ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT
> >>>> > - bool
> >>>> > + bool "Use old (Android 4.4 and earlier) 32-bit binder API"
> >>>> > depends on !64BIT && ANDROID_BINDER_IPC
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't actually change the depends line :(
> >>>>
> >>>> Please fix up, and test it, and then resend.
> >>>
> >>> IHOM, the dependency is correct: 64bit platforms don't support
> >>> ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT. What do you think?
> >>
> >> I think this indicates the commit message is unclear.
> >>
> >> Part of it is that the config is inverted from the description. The
> >> patch doesn't enable the 32bit legacy binder ABI on 32bit systems, it
> >> just allows the option to be unselected, so that the 64bit ABI will be
> >> used on 32bit systems.
> >>
> >> Conceptually I don't have an objection to the change (though maybe try
> >> to rework the commit message), but I don't have anything to actually
> >> test it on right now, so I'm hesitant to ack it.
> >
> > It might also be good to add some detail as to the motivation for this
> > change? What benefit does it bring to 32bit platforms to use the newer
> > 64bit ABI?
>
> It allows running the same 32-bit userspace build whether the kernel
> is 64-bit or 32-bit.
>
Oh, yes, this is a good "motivation" which can be added into the commit msg.
thanks for the inspiration.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
