On 4/20/21 6:15 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> writes: >> Le 19/04/2021 à 23:39, Randy Dunlap a écrit : >>> On 4/19/21 6:16 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>> Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> writes: >>> >>>>> Sure. I'll post them later today. >>>>> They keep FPU and ALTIVEC as independent (build) features. >>>> >>>> Those patches look OK. >>>> >>>> But I don't think it makes sense to support that configuration, FPU=n >>>> ALTVEC=y. No one is ever going to make a CPU like that. We have enough >>>> testing surface due to configuration options, without adding artificial >>>> combinations that no one is ever going to use. >>>> >>>> IMHO :) >>>> >>>> So I'd rather we just make ALTIVEC depend on FPU. >>> >>> That's rather simple. See below. >>> I'm doing a bunch of randconfig builds with it now. >>> >>> --- >>> From: Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> >>> Subject: [PATCH] powerpc: make ALTIVEC depend PPC_FPU >>> >>> On a kernel config with ALTIVEC=y and PPC_FPU not set/enabled, >>> there are build errors: >>> >>> drivers/cpufreq/pmac32-cpufreq.c:262:2: error: implicit declaration of >>> function 'enable_kernel_fp' [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] >>> enable_kernel_fp(); >>> ../arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c: In function 'do_vec_load': >>> ../arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c:637:3: error: implicit declaration of function >>> 'put_vr' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>> 637 | put_vr(rn, &u.v); >>> | ^~~~~~ >>> ../arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c: In function 'do_vec_store': >>> ../arch/powerpc/lib/sstep.c:660:3: error: implicit declaration of function >>> 'get_vr'; did you mean 'get_oc'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>> 660 | get_vr(rn, &u.v); >>> | ^~~~~~ >>> >>> In theory ALTIVEC is independent of PPC_FPU but in practice nobody >>> is going to build such a machine, so make ALTIVEC require PPC_FPU >>> by depending on PPC_FPU. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> >>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com> >>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> >>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org >>> Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu> >>> Cc: Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> >>> Cc: l...@intel.com >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/platforms/86xx/Kconfig | 1 + >>> arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> --- linux-next-20210416.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/86xx/Kconfig >>> +++ linux-next-20210416/arch/powerpc/platforms/86xx/Kconfig >>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ menuconfig PPC_86xx >>> bool "86xx-based boards" >>> depends on PPC_BOOK3S_32 >>> select FSL_SOC >>> + select PPC_FPU >>> select ALTIVEC >>> help >>> The Freescale E600 SoCs have 74xx cores. >>> --- linux-next-20210416.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype >>> +++ linux-next-20210416/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype >>> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ config E300C3_CPU >>> config G4_CPU >>> bool "G4 (74xx)" >>> depends on PPC_BOOK3S_32 >>> + select PPC_FPU >>> select ALTIVEC >>> >>> endchoice >>> @@ -309,6 +310,7 @@ config PHYS_64BIT >>> >>> config ALTIVEC >>> bool "AltiVec Support" >>> + depends on PPC_FPU >> >> Shouldn't we do it the other way round ? In extenso make ALTIVEC select >> PPC_FPU and avoid the two >> selects that are above ? > > Yes, ALTIVEC should select PPC_FPU. > > The latter is (generally) not user selectable, so there's no issue with > selecting it, whereas the reverse is not true. > > For 64-bit Book3S I think we could just always enable ALTIVEC these > days. It's only Power5 that doesn't have it, and essentially no one is > running mainline on those AFAIK. But that can be done separately.
OK, I'll run that thru some tests today. thanks. -- ~Randy
