The revision with these bugs fixed is 2F03. Up to now all processors
used in current products are 2F01/02.
2F03 is in production and expected in this summer.
Zhang Le wrote:
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
--
张福新 Zhang Fuxin
龙芯梦兰 管理部 总经理 Lemote General Manager
zhangfx@xxxxxxxxxx
