From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/44x: Fix build failure with GCC 12 (unrecognized opcode: `wrteei')
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:12:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220711171226.GG25951@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a33jf5CUpyzWmRHpoUDMWB7TqSw5afUW=rcmMVSK8BvRA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Is there any value in building for -mcpu=440 or -mcpu=464 when targeting a 476?
The original 440 had a very short pipeline. Later IBM 4xx have a longer
pipeline. Getting this right (with -mtune=, or just with -mcpu=) is
important for performance. So, no?
> Maybe add another !PPC_47x dependency for the first two. Ideally we would also
> enforce that 440/464 based boards cannot be selected together with 476, though
> I guess that is a separate issue.
>
> Is there a practical difference between 440 and 464 when building kernels?
> gcc seems to treat them the same way, so maybe one option for both is enough
> here.
-mcpu= is used as the default for -mtune=, so that is always a
consideration. PPC464 is treated the same as PPC440 in binutils as
well, so I don't think there is any issue there.
Segher
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/44x: Fix build failure with GCC 12 (unrecognized opcode: `wrteei')
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:12:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220711171226.GG25951@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a33jf5CUpyzWmRHpoUDMWB7TqSw5afUW=rcmMVSK8BvRA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Is there any value in building for -mcpu=440 or -mcpu=464 when targeting a 476?
The original 440 had a very short pipeline. Later IBM 4xx have a longer
pipeline. Getting this right (with -mtune=, or just with -mcpu=) is
important for performance. So, no?
> Maybe add another !PPC_47x dependency for the first two. Ideally we would also
> enforce that 440/464 based boards cannot be selected together with 476, though
> I guess that is a separate issue.
>
> Is there a practical difference between 440 and 464 when building kernels?
> gcc seems to treat them the same way, so maybe one option for both is enough
> here.
-mcpu= is used as the default for -mtune=, so that is always a
consideration. PPC464 is treated the same as PPC440 in binutils as
well, so I don't think there is any issue there.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-11 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-11 14:19 [PATCH v1 1/5] powerpc/32: Do not allow selection of e5500 or e6500 CPUs on PPC32 Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 14:19 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 14:19 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] powerpc/32: Don't always pass -mcpu=powerpc to the compiler Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 14:19 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 16:50 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-07-11 16:50 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-08-18 17:46 ` Pali Rohár
2022-08-18 17:46 ` Pali Rohár
2022-08-20 10:55 ` Pali Rohár
2022-08-20 10:55 ` Pali Rohár
2022-07-11 14:19 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] powerpc/405: Fix build failure with GCC 12 (unrecognized opcode: `wrteei') Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 14:19 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 14:19 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/44x: " Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 14:19 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 15:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-07-11 15:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2022-07-11 15:49 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 15:49 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 17:12 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2022-07-11 17:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-07-11 14:19 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] powerpc/64e: " Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 14:19 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-12-11 17:32 ` Pali Rohár
2022-12-11 17:32 ` Pali Rohár
2022-12-12 7:36 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-12-12 7:36 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-12-12 10:27 ` Michael Ellerman
2022-12-12 10:27 ` Michael Ellerman
2022-07-11 16:39 ` [PATCH v1 1/5] powerpc/32: Do not allow selection of e5500 or e6500 CPUs on PPC32 Segher Boessenkool
2022-07-11 16:39 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-07-11 17:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-07-11 17:42 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-07-29 13:02 ` Michael Ellerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220711171226.GG25951@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.