Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kconfig: Remove the architecture specific config for Propeller

[Rong Xu]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 6:54 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 10:52:48AM -0700, Rong Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 2:43 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I still don't think it has anything to do with the arch. If the compiler
> > > supports the option, then we can use it. The arch code in the kernel
> > > doesn't need to do anything, right? So can you just check if the
> > > compiler accepts the option using a 'depends on $(cc-option, ...)' line?
> >
> > Yes, arch code in the kernel does not need to do anything—it is just a marker.
> >
> > I understand your concern. I can use (cc-options,...) in PROPELLER_CLANG config.
> > But I will not use -fbasic-block-address-map for backward compatiliby reason.
> > I would use "-fbasic-block-sections=list=/dev/null".
> >
> > I'll send the updated patch shortly.
>
> Technically, an architecture needs to add the section generated by this
> compiler option to their linker script to avoid an orphan section
> warning (or error from CONFIG_WERROR) if enabled, as has been done in
> this series.
>
> I worry that moving to a dynamic check will cause build breakage if an
> LLVM target gains support for Propeller without having their kernel
> image linker script adjusted. Maybe that will not happen very often and
> even if it does, I do not mind taking on the maintenance burden of
> fixing it but there is a cost of moving to a dynamic check like this.
>

This is true.

That said, these orphan sections usually won't impact correctness. The
linker will group these together even withgout the link script change,
even though it generates a lot of warnings.

With moving to a dynamic check, correct usage of this feature remains
the user's responsibility -- I think this is Will's point from the
very beginning.
As noted in your previous response, the dynamic check is primarily
intended to prevent "allmodconfig" build failures.

I am comfortable with either the arch_kconfig or dynamic_check
approach. Once a preferred solution is decided, please let me know so
I can submit v4 for review.

Thanks,

-Rong





> --
> Cheers,
> Nathan