On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:13:53 +0200, Martin Michlmayr <tbm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > IP32 kernels that are built with CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64=y only produce an > exception when booted. This worked with 2.6.19 and before. I haven't > had a chance to dig deep yet but it seems both Franck Bui-Huu and > Atsushi Nemoto had patches in 2.6.20 that might have caused this. > This still happens with 2.6.22. I cannot boot current git for other > reasons. I think this is solved on current git a few weeks ago by this commit (not mainlined yet): > Subject: [MIPS] Fix CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 kernels with symbols in CKSEG0. > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:12:03 +0100 > Author: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tue Sep 11 08:50:40 2007 +0100 > Commit: db423f6e86c3c4c70edf3eaf504e22c467b9f97c > Gitweb: http://www.linux-mips.org/g/linux/db423f6e > Branch: master It is just one liner and can be backported easily. > If anyone has an idea which specific patch might have caused this, > please let me know. Otherwise I'll try to find time in the next few > days to revert various patches. Well, It might be a bit hard to revert specific patch in patchset with dependencies. For background, there were fairly lengthy discussion on this topic. My thought was abstracted in this: (http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2007-03/msg00484.html) On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:09:12 +0900 (JST), Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > And I think the answer is > > 1) Disable CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 in short term. > > 2) Apply Franck's patchset with a slight change (enclose -msym32 by > $(call cc-option)). > > And _if_ this did not work on IP32, something needs to be fixed, but I > can not see why for now. I still think CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64=n is best choice. You can get smaller and faster kernel with this. Are there any reason to use CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64=y for IP32? (Note that CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 and CONFIG_BOOT_ELF64 is separate thing.) And The Franck's patchset is already in linux-queue tree of lmo so should be in 2.6.24. And finally I can remember the report from Kumba: http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2007-03/msg00485.html I do not know this RM52xx thing is fixed or not. ;) --- Atsushi Nemoto
