On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 08:10 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt >> <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 00:53 +0200, Frank Svendsbøe wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Josh Boyer, >> >> >> >> just wanted to add that I'm experiencing the same problem that Robert >> >> reported, but on 8xx instead of 4xx. The mpc8xx does not support the >> >> mfdcrx instruction, so maybe it's more to it than just a binutils bug? >> > >> > The kernel shouldn't have tried to build that instruction on 8xx, though >> > I suppose if it's in arch/powerpc/boot, we are a bit too eager at >> > building everything including what's not relevant, we might to be a bit >> > more careful at excluding 4xx stuff on a 8xx kernel. >> >> It's still a binutils issue. Sounds like the toolchain being used to >> build the 8xx kernel is specifically built for 8xx. A generally built >> binutils should have worked fine (assuming it was new enough), since >> we pass -mcpu=405. > > Still, it makes sense to limit the building of the wrappers to the CPU > family of the kernel...
Oh, I'm not really disagreeing with that. I think I said as much about 4 years ago, but at the time the prevailing opinion was what we currently have. I never really understood why. Out with the old, in with the sane. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
