Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 20:34 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: Hello Scott, On 11/12/2013 07:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:57 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: Hello Scott, On 11/12/2013 04:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. Yes. But for mpc85xx_/smp_defconfig the datapath support shouldn't be enabled by default given that just one SoC in that family has the datapath (and we don't plan to put it in another e500v2 based SoC). For regression/automation purposes config fragments should be used Is there any way to specify a meta-config for p1023 (or e500v2-dpaa or whatever) that says to combine mpc85xx_smp_defconfig with a dpaa fragment? Not aware of it Then it's not yet a substitute for having a defconfig. Do we have any config fragments in the tree so far? Nope. However, just to make sure, the fragment was my secondary point and not necessarily as a candidate for upstreaming. My main point was that the datapath support should simply not be enabled by default in the mpc85xx_[smp_]defconfig I think we should get numbers on how big the datapath code is (in its eventual upstream form) before deciding that, but if we do end up deciding not to enable it in mpc85xx_smp_defconfig, then there should be a separate defconfig for p1023 (possibly with a more generic name as discussed earlier). If and when there's support for defconfigs that direct fragments to be included, then we can change the p1023 defconfig to use that, but I don't want to just leave it up to the user to enable manually. If there's any way we can get the datapath code down to a reasonable size for inclusion in mpc85xx_smp_defconfig, that would be ideal. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
Hello Scott, On 11/13/2013 12:19 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 20:34 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: Hello Scott, On 11/12/2013 07:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:57 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: Hello Scott, On 11/12/2013 04:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. Yes. But for mpc85xx_/smp_defconfig the datapath support shouldn't be enabled by default given that just one SoC in that family has the datapath (and we don't plan to put it in another e500v2 based SoC). For regression/automation purposes config fragments should be used Is there any way to specify a meta-config for p1023 (or e500v2-dpaa or whatever) that says to combine mpc85xx_smp_defconfig with a dpaa fragment? Not aware of it Then it's not yet a substitute for having a defconfig. Do we have any config fragments in the tree so far? Nope. However, just to make sure, the fragment was my secondary point and not necessarily as a candidate for upstreaming. My main point was that the datapath support should simply not be enabled by default in the mpc85xx_[smp_]defconfig I think we should get numbers on how big the datapath code is (in its eventual upstream form) before deciding that, but if we do end up deciding not to enable it in mpc85xx_smp_defconfig, then there should be a separate defconfig for p1023 (possibly with a more generic name as discussed earlier). If and when there's support for defconfigs that direct fragments to be included, then we can change the p1023 defconfig to use that, but I don't want to just leave it up to the user to enable manually. If there's any way we can get the datapath code down to a reasonable size for inclusion in mpc85xx_smp_defconfig, that would be ideal. Somebody gratuitously added a P1023 defconfig more then two years ago with the notion that P1023 is special due to its datapath and we're still one year out before we'll have the (P1023) datapath driver upstream. As of now this defconfig is just bit-rotting in the tree creating confusion. Let's just remove it for now and we'll deal with the entire e500v2_dpaa business when the datapath support will be upstreamed Cheers, ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 12:29 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: Somebody gratuitously added a P1023 defconfig more then two years ago with the notion that P1023 is special due to its datapath and we're still one year out before we'll have the (P1023) datapath driver upstream. As of now this defconfig is just bit-rotting in the tree creating confusion. Let's just remove it for now and we'll deal with the entire e500v2_dpaa business when the datapath support will be upstreamed Sure. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig How much of the changes to mpc85xx_defconfig mpc85xx_smp_defconfig are based on just updating them vs changes for p1023? Can we do this as two patches. One that updates mpc85xx_defconfig mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and one that makes the p1023 changes. That is much easier to review as well. - k ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com wrote: +CONFIG_P1023_RDB=y I think this is the only line you should be adding to the defconfigs. None of the others should be necessary. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:49 -0600, Zang Roy-R61911 wrote: -Original Message- From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+tie- fei.zang=freescale@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Scott Wood Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:05 PM To: Pan Lijun-B44306 Cc: linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. P1023 has dpaa. Will mpc85xx_defconfig or mpc85xx_smp_defconfig support dpaa? That's the question I'm asking. Though I suppose we could take a patch like this one for now, and then introduce mpc85xx_dpaa_defconfig when it becomes relevant (which would make clear why the defconfig is separate). p1023 would still work with the non-dpaa defconfigs, but without dpaa support. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 17:05 -0600, Zang Roy-R61911 wrote: -Original Message- From: Wood Scott-B07421 Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:52 PM To: Zang Roy-R61911 Cc: Pan Lijun-B44306; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:49 -0600, Zang Roy-R61911 wrote: -Original Message- From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+tie- fei.zang=freescale@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Scott Wood Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:05 PM To: Pan Lijun-B44306 Cc: linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. P1023 has dpaa. Will mpc85xx_defconfig or mpc85xx_smp_defconfig support dpaa? That's the question I'm asking. Though I suppose we could take a patch like this one for now, and then introduce mpc85xx_dpaa_defconfig when it becomes relevant (which would make clear why the defconfig is separate). p1023 would still work with the non-dpaa defconfigs, but without dpaa support. It will be hard to find a seat for P1023 in mpc85xx_dpaa_defconfig. What do you mean? P1023 does not have corenet. It has e500v2 core. All the other DPAA SOCs have corenet. I suggest leaving p1023 defconfig standalone. I didn't say mpc85xx_corenet_defconfig, nor did I suggest that mpc85xx_dpaa_defconfig replace corenet32_defconfig. Perhaps e500v2_dpaa_defconfig would be a better name. It would effectively be a standalone p1023 defconfig, but with a name that reflects the reason for it, and which would accommodate future e500v2 dpaa chips in the unlikely case that such things are made. Do you know how large the current SDK datapath code is? Though perhaps the eventual upstream version will be smaller. -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
Hello Scott, On 11/12/2013 04:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. Yes. But for mpc85xx_/smp_defconfig the datapath support shouldn't be enabled by default given that just one SoC in that family has the datapath (and we don't plan to put it in another e500v2 based SoC). For regression/automation purposes config fragments should be used Cheers, ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
RE: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
-Original Message- From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+tie- fei.zang=freescale@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Scott Wood Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:05 PM To: Pan Lijun-B44306 Cc: linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. P1023 has dpaa. Will mpc85xx_defconfig or mpc85xx_smp_defconfig support dpaa? Thanks. Roy ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
RE: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
-Original Message- From: Wood Scott-B07421 Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:52 PM To: Zang Roy-R61911 Cc: Pan Lijun-B44306; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:49 -0600, Zang Roy-R61911 wrote: -Original Message- From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+tie- fei.zang=freescale@lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Scott Wood Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:05 PM To: Pan Lijun-B44306 Cc: linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. P1023 has dpaa. Will mpc85xx_defconfig or mpc85xx_smp_defconfig support dpaa? That's the question I'm asking. Though I suppose we could take a patch like this one for now, and then introduce mpc85xx_dpaa_defconfig when it becomes relevant (which would make clear why the defconfig is separate). p1023 would still work with the non-dpaa defconfigs, but without dpaa support. It will be hard to find a seat for P1023 in mpc85xx_dpaa_defconfig. P1023 does not have corenet. It has e500v2 core. All the other DPAA SOCs have corenet. I suggest leaving p1023 defconfig standalone. Roy ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:57 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: Hello Scott, On 11/12/2013 04:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. Yes. But for mpc85xx_/smp_defconfig the datapath support shouldn't be enabled by default given that just one SoC in that family has the datapath (and we don't plan to put it in another e500v2 based SoC). For regression/automation purposes config fragments should be used Is there any way to specify a meta-config for p1023 (or e500v2-dpaa or whatever) that says to combine mpc85xx_smp_defconfig with a dpaa fragment? Do we have any config fragments in the tree so far? -Scott ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH V2] powerpc/85xx: Merge 85xx/p1023_defconfig into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig
Hello Scott, On 11/12/2013 07:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:57 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: Hello Scott, On 11/12/2013 04:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:25 -0600, Lijun Pan wrote: mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85xx_defconfig already have CONFIG_P1023RDS=y. Merge CONFIG_P1023RDB=y and other relevant configurations into mpc85xx_smp_defconfig and mpc85_defconfig. Signed-off-by: Lijun Pan lijun@freescale.com --- arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig | 188 arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_defconfig | 18 +++ arch/powerpc/configs/mpc85xx_smp_defconfig | 17 +++ 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/85xx/p1023_defconfig Are we still going to want to have one defconfig if and when we finally get datapath support upstream? That's a lot of code to add to the 85xx config just for this one chip. Yes. But for mpc85xx_/smp_defconfig the datapath support shouldn't be enabled by default given that just one SoC in that family has the datapath (and we don't plan to put it in another e500v2 based SoC). For regression/automation purposes config fragments should be used Is there any way to specify a meta-config for p1023 (or e500v2-dpaa or whatever) that says to combine mpc85xx_smp_defconfig with a dpaa fragment? Not aware of it Do we have any config fragments in the tree so far? Nope. However, just to make sure, the fragment was my secondary point and not necessarily as a candidate for upstreaming. My main point was that the datapath support should simply not be enabled by default in the mpc85xx_[smp_]defconfig Cheers, ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
