linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: Sentosa boot fix

To: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Sentosa boot fix
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:49:41 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>, dan@debian.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <cda58cb80702010759w505b4b8br44fb75be28cc8ff0@mail.gmail.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <cda58cb80701290806p5d68ba5ck5e3e3b2b3490126f@mail.gmail.com> <20070129161450.GA3384@nevyn.them.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0701291833480.26916@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20070130.234537.126574565.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0701301713350.9231@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <cda58cb80702010151x62e3b92ap18c63110f7fd4f0c@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0702011233240.7161@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <cda58cb80702010759w505b4b8br44fb75be28cc8ff0@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:

> It gives good default behaviours without both user's intervention or
> configuration:
> 
>       if CONFIG_64BITS
>               ifndef sym32
>                       if load-y in XKPHYS
>                               sym32 = ''              [1]
>                       elif load-y in CKSEG0
>                               sym32 = '-msym32'       [2]
>               else
>                       if sym32 eq 'yes'
>                               sym32 = '-msym32'       [3]
>               endef
>       fi
>       cflags-y += $(sym32)
> 
> [1] since there is no reason to add '-msym32' and it would generate
>    wrong code anyways.
> [2] since it's used by all platforms to generate smaller code.
>    Warn if this option is not supported by the tool chains.
> [3] if you really want to generate code loaded in CKSEG0 without
>    -msym32 switch you could always do:
> 
>               $ make sym32=no

 Well, it seems fair enough indeed, as long as the availability of 
"-msym32" is verified as suggested by Atsushi-san.

>    IMHO, for normal users, this case is probably a configuration
>    bug and that's the reason we should request for a user to ask for
>    it explicitly.

 Hmm, that just raises the question for a definition of who a "normal 
user" is.  And in general -- what "normality" is and why exactly that and 
not something else. ;-)

  Maciej

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>