linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely

To: kumba@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Remove CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 entirely
From: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:01:06 +0900 (JST)
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ths@networkno.de, ralf@linux-mips.org, vagabon.xyz@gmail.com
In-reply-to: <460C7404.2020209@gentoo.org> <45D8B070.7070405@gentoo.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <460A6CED.1070308@gentoo.org> <20070329.002453.18311528.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <460C7404.2020209@gentoo.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:20:52 -0400, Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Just an optimization.  For CKSEG0 symbol, a LUI instruction can fill
> > high 32-bit by sign-extention.  Either code should work for CKSEG0
> > kernel.
> 
> Well, thinking about it some more, can this stackframe change be segmented 
> out 
> of Frank's main patches, so we can get them into git, and spend time in 
> 2.6.21/2.6.22/2.6.23 chasing down what exactly is up with this specific asm 
> sequence?

This is not Franck's fault.  His patchset does not change behavior if
kernel load address was CKSEG0 and CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64 was not set
(unless you are using gcc 3.x).

Let's clarify things a bit: The Franck's patchset is _not_ fix.  It
just tried to avoid undesirable configuration (CKSEG0 kernel with
BUILD_ELF64=y), and clarify some namings.

So I should ask you again, does current git (or 2.6.20-stable) kernel
compiled by binutils-2.17/gcc-4.[12] work for IP32 if you disabled
CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64?

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:00:48 -0500, Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The [short-term] fix highlighted by Ilya is to make __pa() unconditionally be 
> defined to "((unsigned long)(x) < CKSEG0 ? PAGE_OFFSET : CKSEG0)"; Discovered 
> by 
> building IP32 with CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64=n.

So I had thought CONFIG_BUILD_ELF64=n worked for IP32...

---
Atsushi Nemoto

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