On Monday, August 23, 2010 14:16:30 Steve Longerbeam wrote: > On 08/23/2010 10:47 AM, Steve Longerbeam wrote: > > On 08/22/2010 05:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> the common code changes will need justification as to why they exist > >> at all. > >> we're doing MPU on Blackfin/nommu today without any of these. we > >> support > >> pretty much all the same features of a MMU system short of virtual > >> memory -- > >> 4k pages, RWX granularity, process to process protection, process to > >> kernel > >> protection (include kernel modules), kernel XIP, and userspace XIP. > >> > >> further, why did you go with CONFIG_CPU_CP15_MPU ? there is already a > >> CONFIG_MPU option that is used in common nommu code. > > > > which tree has CONFIG_MPU, and the MPU support for blackfin? There is > > no such thing in the 888 uclinux release tree. > > sorry, I see CONFIG_MPU under blackfin in the 888 release. > > I'm not familiar with the blackfin arch, but my patches of course are > specific to ARM MPU's.
i dont see how the processor matters. you're running Linux without virtual memory support (CONFIG_MMU=n) and you want to do memory protection (CONFIG_MPU=y). there is no need to stick a specific cpu name in there. after all, the option is CONFIG_MPU and not CONFIG_BFIN_MPU because all the changes we made (which were few) to common code were processor independent (exactly like all changes to common code should be). we specifically left the door open for other processors to support MMU=n MPU=y without an ifdef mess. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
