From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:54:43 -0500 (EST)
> The right fix is to simply teach btfixup to be able to patch
> the 'restore' just as equally as it would patch an 'or'.
Try this:
--------------------
sparc32: Be less strict in matching %lo part of relocation.
The "(insn & 0x01800000) != 0x01800000" test matches 'restore'
but that is a legitimate place to see the %lo() part of a 32-bit
symbol relocation, particularly in tail calls.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c | 3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c b/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c
index 5175ac2..8a7f817 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c
@@ -302,8 +302,7 @@ void __init btfixup(void)
case 'i': /* INT */
if ((insn & 0xc1c00000) == 0x01000000) /* %HI */
set_addr(addr, q[1], fmangled, (insn & 0xffc00000) | (p[1] >> 10));
- else if ((insn & 0x80002000) == 0x80002000 &&
- (insn & 0x01800000) != 0x01800000) /* %LO */
+ else if ((insn & 0x80002000) == 0x80002000) /* %LO */
set_addr(addr, q[1], fmangled, (insn & 0xffffe000) | (p[1] & 0x3ff));
else {
prom_printf(insn_i, p, addr, insn);
--
1.7.6.401.g6a319
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
