Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] Loongson-2F: Enable fixups of binutils 2.20.1

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 14:52 Wed 17 Mar     , Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:34:16PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/mips/Makefile b/arch/mips/Makefile
> > index 2f2eac2..5ae342e 100644
> > --- a/arch/mips/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/mips/Makefile
> > @@ -135,7 +135,9 @@ cflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON2)	+= -Wa,--trap
> >  cflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON2E) += \
> >  	$(call cc-option,-march=loongson2e,-march=r4600)
> >  cflags-$(CONFIG_CPU_LOONGSON2F) += \
> > -	$(call cc-option,-march=loongson2f,-march=r4600)
> > +	$(call cc-option,-march=loongson2f,-march=r4600) \
> > +	$(call as-option,-Wa$(comma)-mfix-loongson2f-nop,) \
> > +	$(call as-option,-Wa$(comma)-mfix-loongson2f-jump,)
> 
> Shouldn't these options be used unconditionally?  It seems a kernel build
> should rather fail than a possibly unreliable kernel be built - possibly
> even without the user noticing the problem.

Zhangjin has been busy preparing for his graduation paper.
I just talked to him. He said later batches of 2F processor is not affected by
these two problems, according to Zhang Fuxin, manager of Lemote.

I am not sure on which model of Fuloong and Yeeloong these "good" 2F processors
have been used. I think Fuxin should know this.

If Fuxin could told us now, we can make a new patch. In this patch, we decide
whether to add these options or not base on the model number.

Otherwise, for now, I think we should enable these options unconditionally.

Zhang, Le


[Index of Archives]     [Linux MIPS Home]     [LKML Archive]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux]     [Git]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]

  Powered by Linux