On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 02:45:51PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: >> If support for a v6K processor is included, we have no way to know >> from preprocessor definitions whether a plain v6 processor is also to >> be supported. > > Yes we do. See the v6 patches I've recently posted to various mailing > lists. > > This patch series was created in the hope that it could be tested by a > sufficient number of people so that it could go into -rc1 as at the > moment, omap2plus_defconfig builds data-corrupting kernels. > > Unfortunately, the response was not as good as I was hoping - it's > possible to count the number of testers on one hand. So it's now > scheduled for the next merge window. What this means is that v2.6.37 > and v2.6.38 omap2plus_defconfig kernels _will_ _be_ _unsafe_ when run > on SMP hardware, and will remain that way. If a fix is not suitable for > -rc, it most certainly isn't suitable for -stable. > What the patch set does demonstrate that we can know at preprocessor > time that plain v6 processors should be supported along side v6k and > v7. Fair enough--- I hadn't fully understood the implications there, since I'm not really working with the v6 case for now. Adding a CPU_V6/CPU_V6K distinction does seem to solve that specific problem. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to test that easily... I think I will alter my OMAP Thumb-2 support patches to avoid the generic wfi() macro for now -- simply to decouple the dependency pending discussion about system*.h. This can be fixed later, if appropriate. Cheers ---Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
