[U-Boot] [PATCH] arm: Add and select CONFIG_ARMV7
The arch/arm/lib/cache-cp15.c checks for CONFIG_ARMV7 and if this macro is set, it configures TTBR0 register. This register must be configured for the cache on ARMv7 to operate correctly.
The problem is that noone actually sets the CONFIG_ARMV7 macro and thus the TTBR0 is not configured at all. On SoCFPGA, this produces all sorts of minor issues which are hard to replicate, for example certain USB sticks are not detected or QSPI NOR sometimes fails to write pages completely.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com Cc: Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig index fb9176b..c0ab947 100644 --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@ menu "ARM architecture" config SYS_ARCH default "arm"
+config ARMV7 + bool + config ARM64 bool
@@ -34,11 +37,13 @@ config CPU_ARM1176
config CPU_V7 bool + select ARMV7 select HAS_VBAR select HAS_THUMB2
config CPU_V7M bool + select ARMV7 select HAS_THUMB2
config CPU_PXA
On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 02:21:06 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
The arch/arm/lib/cache-cp15.c checks for CONFIG_ARMV7 and if this macro is set, it configures TTBR0 register. This register must be configured for the cache on ARMv7 to operate correctly.
The problem is that noone actually sets the CONFIG_ARMV7 macro and thus the TTBR0 is not configured at all. On SoCFPGA, this produces all sorts of minor issues which are hard to replicate, for example certain USB sticks are not detected or QSPI NOR sometimes fails to write pages completely.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com Cc: Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Please ignore, after discussing this on IRC, we decided on doing s/CONFIG_ARMV7/CONFIG_CPU_V7/g instead.
Best regards, Marek Vasut
Dear Marek,
In message 201512081439.50797.marex@denx.de you wrote:
Please ignore, after discussing this on IRC, we decided on doing s/CONFIG_ARMV7/CONFIG_CPU_V7/g instead.
As IRC si (to the best or my knowledge?) not logged anywhere, I would like to hear the rationale for this decision.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAICT ARMv7 is an official name for a specific ARM architecture, so ARMV7 is something I will probably associate with the right thing.
Compared this to CPU_V7, which can be about anything - which CPU are we talking about here, please?
I still remember the ATWAV syndrome and how long it took to overcome it in code, so do we really have now a stage where we assume that all the world's an ARM ? [SCNR]
In short: Is there a chance to come up with a better name than CPU_V7?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:20:49PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Marek,
In message 201512081439.50797.marex@denx.de you wrote:
Please ignore, after discussing this on IRC, we decided on doing s/CONFIG_ARMV7/CONFIG_CPU_V7/g instead.
As IRC si (to the best or my knowledge?) not logged anywhere, I would like to hear the rationale for this decision.
We're following Linux kernel convention and using the existing CPU_V7 option we have.
participants (3)
-
Marek Vasut -
Tom Rini -
Wolfgang Denk