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
