-----Original Message-----
From: openembedded-core@... <openembedded-core@...> On Behalf Of Khem Raj
Sent: den 2 december 2021 21:21
To: openembedded-core@...
Cc: Khem Raj <raj.khem@...>
Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH] tune-cortexa72.inc: Add tune for nocrypto case

RPI4 based on BCM2711 soc which does not enable AES extentions
in hardware see [1] fixes [2]

[1] https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=207888&start=25#p1642862
[2] https://github.com/agherzan/meta-raspberrypi/issues/964

[YOCTO #14641]

Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@...>
---
meta/conf/machine/include/arm/armv8a/tune-cortexa72.inc | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/armv8a/tune-cortexa72.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/armv8a/tune-cortexa72.inc
index 2a510bd45bd..b2eb35f111b 100644
--- a/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/armv8a/tune-cortexa72.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/arm/armv8a/tune-cortexa72.inc
@@ -6,8 +6,14 @@ TUNE_CCARGS .= "${@bb.utils.contains('TUNE_FEATURES', 'cortexa72', ' -mcpu=corte
require conf/machine/include/arm/arch-armv8a.inc

# Little Endian base configs
-AVAILTUNES += "cortexa72"
+AVAILTUNES += "cortexa72 cortexa72-nocrypto"
ARMPKGARCH:tune-cortexa72 = "cortexa72"
TUNE_FEATURES:tune-cortexa72 = "${TUNE_FEATURES:tune-armv8a-crc-crypto} cortexa72"
PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS:tune-cortexa72 = "${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS:tune-armv8a-crc-crypto} cortexa72"
BASE_LIB:tune-cortexa72 = "lib64"
+
+# Some implementations do not enabled crypto ( e.g. BCM2837B0 in rpi4 )
+ARMPKGARCH:tune-cortexa72-nocrypto = "cortexa72"
+TUNE_FEATURES:tune-cortexa72-nocrypto = "${TUNE_FEATURES:tune-armv8a-crc} cortexa72"
+PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS:tune-cortexa72-nocrypto = "${PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS:tune-armv8a-crc} cortexa72"
+BASE_LIB:tune-cortexa72-nocrypto = "lib64"
--
2.34.1

I do realize renaming cortexa72 to cortexa72-crypto would not be backwards
compatible, but is it really a good idea to introduce a name like this
that does not follow the naming other tunes use?

//Peter