Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Kconfig: Let PLL_BYPASS and MPU depend on some BF_REV of BF533

[Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com>]

On 4/4/15 06:59, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For allmodconfig, it uses BF533 which will cause 3 issues for common
>> checking:
>>
>>  - The first 2 issues are about PLL_BYPASS, it needs BF_REV_0_6 (which
>>    just match the compiler's output for __SILICON_REVISION__).
>>
>>  - The last issue is about MPU, it needs BF_REV_0_5 or BF_REV_0_6 (which
>>    just match the compiler's output for __SILICON_REVISION__).
>>
>> The related error with allmodconfig:
>>
>>     CC      arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.o
>>   arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:24:3: error: #error "Sclk value selected is less than minimum. Please select a proper value for SCLK multiplier"
>>    # error "Sclk value selected is less than minimum. Please select a proper value for SCLK multiplier"
>>      ^
>>   arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:28:3: error: #error "ANOMALY 05000273, please make sure CCLK is at least 2x SCLK"
>>    # error "ANOMALY 05000273, please make sure CCLK is at least 2x SCLK"
>>      ^
>>   arch/blackfin/mach-common/arch_checks.c:51:3: error: #error the MPU will not function safely while Anomaly 05000263 applies
>>    # error the MPU will not function safely while Anomaly 05000263 applies
>>      ^
>>
>>  config PLL_BYPASS
>>         bool "Bypass PLL"
>> -       depends on BFIN_KERNEL_CLOCK && (!BF60x)
>> +       depends on BFIN_KERNEL_CLOCK && (!BF60x) && ((!BF533) || BF_REV_0_6)
>>         default n
>>
>>  config CLKIN_HALF
>> @@ -1112,6 +1112,7 @@ endchoice
>>  comment "Memory Protection Unit"
>>  config MPU
>>         bool "Enable the memory protection unit"
>> +       depends on (!BF533) || BF_REV_0_6 || BF_REV_0_5
>>         default n
>>         help
>>           Use the processor's MPU to protect applications from accessing
> 
> This answers my question wrt. allmodconfig. ;)
> I'm not sure if this is the correct way. Isn't this the reason why we
> have COMPILE_TEST?
> 

For me, COMPILE_TEST is for compiling test without the related hardware
supports, but the code should no any logical issues firstly (at least,
COMPILE_TEST itself should not generate additional logical bugs).

In our case, I guess the first 2 issues are about logical issues (not
hardware supporting issues), so I guess, it is not suitable to use
COMPILE_TEST to bypass them.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed