lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v6 07/23] zinc: ChaCha20 ARM and ARM64 implementations
Hi Ard,

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:16 AM Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > You mean to say that since these nobs are def_bool y and are
> > essentially "depends on ARM", then I should just straight up use
> > CONFIG_ARM? I had thought about this, but figured this would make it
> > easier to later make these optional or have other options block them
> > need be, or even if the dependencies and requirements for having them
> > changes (for example, with UML on x86). I think doing it this way
> > gives us some flexibility later on. So if that's a compelling enough
> > reason, I'd like to keep those.
>
> Sure. But probably better to be consistent then, and stop using
> CONFIG_ARM directly in your code.

Ack.

> > The reason it was added was indeed because of:
> > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2018-September/053114.html
> > -- exactly what you suspected, ARCH_RPC. Have a better suggestion than
> > !CPU_32v3?
>
> Yes, you could just add
>
> asflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v3) += -march=armv4
>
> with a comment stating that we don't actually support ARMv3 but only
> use it as a code generation target for reasons unrelated to the ISA

Alright, I'll do exactly that. Though, if the rationale for this has
to do only with codegen -- with what the C compiler does -- then
shouldn't this be set globally for CONFIG_CPU_32v3? I couldn't find
any macros that test against __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ being 3 in the
assembly, so this shouldn't be a problem I don't think. Maybe I'll
send a patch.

Jason

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-30 04:34    [W:0.144 / U:6.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site