Re: ARM kernel config for Linux 3.11
Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
> As discussed previously, I think PCI should be enabled for the
> armhf/armmp flavour as the Marvell Armada SoCs have PCIe interfaces. It
> might be worthwhile to restrict which PCI drivers are built, if this
> slows the build down a lot.
yeah, the problem is more about choosing what to enable or not rather
than enabling PCI or not. For instance, I remember reading some news
about running a nvidia pci express card on tegra host...
>
> Ian also proposed to add an armhf/armmp-lpae flavour. I think it's time
> to do that, but I would also like to see the 3 platform-specific armhf
> flavours removed. Which of the platforms are sufficiently well
> supported by armhf/armmp that we can do that?
all platforms should be working quite well with armmp kernels theses
days. Unfortunately, most (vendor-related) upstreams are not always
testing with drivers compiled as modules, so I don't think they're
testing with other SoCs enabled. Let's hope it'll go well.
At least, if we add LPAE flavour, the other non multiplatform should be
dropped to avoid waiting days for new kernels.
>
> The new imx-drm driver (CONFIG_DRM_IMX) should probably be enabled in
> armhf/armmp and armhf/mx5.
I'm not sure how well it's working. I've even seen recently patches for
using it on loco boards so some support may still be missing (no idea
about imx6 support). There has been also some lockdep warnings for ages.
There are maybe other bugs but I don't remember them for now. I've
already went through a lot of ups and downs with this driver.
>
> After some cleanup of the top-level configuration, the armel/iop32x and
> armel/ixp4xx flavours can again be built. However these may still need
> specific attention in the future.
There's some work done to move from current gpio support on iop to
gpiolib. I fear it may increase vmlinux size (of course, it may also be
a decrease in size). Nevertheless, it proved that there are still some users
of iop32x (mostly n2100 users).
Arnaud
Reply to: