On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 08:24:21AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> [110209 01:59]: > > > From: Dave Martin [mailto:dave.martin@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > You could also have a "v7+" unified kernel -- i.e., supporting > > > OMAP3+4+SMP. > > > This is what we currently do in Linaro, since we're focusing on v7 > > > and above. > > > > > This sounds good way forward considering future OMAP architectures > > as well. > > > > But I let Tony comment on this idea. > > AFAIK these issues will be hopefully sorted out by the time the > next merge window opens. For the -rc cycle, disabling SMP in > config if ARMv6 is selected should do the trick. That's not soo easy - as we don't know in the Kconfig whether we include ARMv6 rather than ARMv6K. It's exactly the same problem I ran into which inflated the v6v7 patchset. Maybe the best thing to do is: config CPU_32v6K bool "Support ARM V6K processor extensions" if !SMP depends on CPU_V6 || CPU_V7 default y if SMP && !(ARCH_MX3 || ARCH_OMAP2) drop the ' && !(ARCH_MX3 || ARCH_OMAP2)' and just let people run into the resulting undefined instruction traps if they try to run the kernel on V6 non-K hardware. Not ideal, but I don't see any other 'simple' solution to this. -- 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
