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
> 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.