On 16:29 Sat 27 Mar , Zhang Le wrote: > 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. Sorry, I got Zhang Fuxin's email wrong. Now fixed. Zhang, Le
