* [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc
@ 2017-12-20 13:00 Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-20 13:46 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-21 16:57 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2017-12-20 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
gcc-6.0 and later marks support for ARMv3 and ARMv4 as 'deprecated',
meaning that this is expected to be removed at some point in the future,
with gcc-8.0 as the earliest.
When building the kernel, the difference between ARMv4 and ARMv4T
is relatively small because the kernel never runs THUMB instructions
on ARMv4T and does not need any support for interworking.
For any future compiler that does not support -march=armv4, we now
fall back to -march=armv4t as the architecture level selection,
but keep using -march=armv4 by default as long as that is supported
by the compiler.
Similarly, the -mtune=strongarm110 and -mtune=strongarm1100 options
will go away at the same time as -march=armv4, so this adds a check
to see if the compiler supports them, falling back to no -mtune
option otherwise.
Compiling with -march=armv4t leads the compiler to using 'bx reg'
instructions instead of 'mov pc,reg'. This is not supported on
ARMv4 based CPUs, but the linker can work around this by rewriting
those instructions to the ARMv4 version if we pass --fix-v4bx
to the linker. This should work with binutils-2.15 (released
May 2004) or higher, and we can probably assume that anyone using
gcc-7.x will have a much more recent binutils version as well.
However, in order to still allow users of old toolchains to link
the kernel, we only pass the option to linkers that support it,
based on a $(ld-option ...) call. I'm intentionally passing the
flag to all linker versions here regardless of whether it's needed
or not, so we can more easily spot any regressions if something
goes wrong.
For consistency, I'm passing the --fix-v4bx flag for both the
vmlinux final link and the individual loadable modules.
The module loader code already interprets the R_ARM_V4BX relocations
in loadable modules and converts bx instructions into mov even
when running on ARMv4T or ARMv5 processors. This is now redundant
when we pass --fix-v4bx to the linker for building modules, but
I see no harm in leaving the current implementation and doing both.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
Please test by making the -march=armv4t switch unconditional
and see if that results in a working kernel
arch/arm/Makefile | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/Makefile b/arch/arm/Makefile
index e83f5161fdd8..33b7eb4502aa 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/Makefile
@@ -19,6 +19,11 @@ LDFLAGS_vmlinux += --be8
KBUILD_LDFLAGS_MODULE += --be8
endif
+ifeq ($(CONFIG_CPU_32v4),y)
+LDFLAGS_vmlinux += $(call ld-option,--fix-v4bx)
+LDFLAGS_MODULE += $(call ld-option,--fix-v4bx)
+endif
+
ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM_MODULE_PLTS),y)
KBUILD_LDFLAGS_MODULE += -T $(srctree)/arch/arm/kernel/module.lds
endif
@@ -76,7 +81,7 @@ arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v6K) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=6 $(call cc-option,-march=armv6k,
endif
arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v5) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=5 $(call cc-option,-march=armv5te,-march=armv4t)
arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4T) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4t
-arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4
+arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 $(call cc-option,-march=armv4,-march=armv4t)
arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v3) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=3 -march=armv3
# Evaluate arch cc-option calls now
@@ -94,8 +99,8 @@ tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM922T) =-mtune=arm9tdmi
tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM925T) =-mtune=arm9tdmi
tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM926T) =-mtune=arm9tdmi
tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_FA526) =-mtune=arm9tdmi
-tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA110) =-mtune=strongarm110
-tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA1100) =-mtune=strongarm1100
+tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA110) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=strongarm110)
+tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA1100) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=strongarm1100)
tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_XSCALE) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=xscale,-mtune=strongarm110) -Wa,-mcpu=xscale
tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_XSC3) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=xscale,-mtune=strongarm110) -Wa,-mcpu=xscale
tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_FEROCEON) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=marvell-f,-mtune=xscale)
--
2.9.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc
2017-12-20 13:00 [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc Arnd Bergmann
@ 2017-12-20 13:46 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-20 14:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-21 16:57 ` Linus Walleij
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2017-12-20 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Arnd,
On 20 December 2017 at 13:00, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> gcc-6.0 and later marks support for ARMv3 and ARMv4 as 'deprecated',
> meaning that this is expected to be removed at some point in the future,
> with gcc-8.0 as the earliest.
>
> When building the kernel, the difference between ARMv4 and ARMv4T
> is relatively small because the kernel never runs THUMB instructions
> on ARMv4T and does not need any support for interworking.
>
> For any future compiler that does not support -march=armv4, we now
> fall back to -march=armv4t as the architecture level selection,
> but keep using -march=armv4 by default as long as that is supported
> by the compiler.
>
> Similarly, the -mtune=strongarm110 and -mtune=strongarm1100 options
> will go away at the same time as -march=armv4, so this adds a check
> to see if the compiler supports them, falling back to no -mtune
> option otherwise.
>
> Compiling with -march=armv4t leads the compiler to using 'bx reg'
> instructions instead of 'mov pc,reg'. This is not supported on
> ARMv4 based CPUs, but the linker can work around this by rewriting
> those instructions to the ARMv4 version if we pass --fix-v4bx
> to the linker. This should work with binutils-2.15 (released
> May 2004) or higher, and we can probably assume that anyone using
> gcc-7.x will have a much more recent binutils version as well.
>
> However, in order to still allow users of old toolchains to link
> the kernel, we only pass the option to linkers that support it,
> based on a $(ld-option ...) call. I'm intentionally passing the
> flag to all linker versions here regardless of whether it's needed
> or not, so we can more easily spot any regressions if something
> goes wrong.
>
> For consistency, I'm passing the --fix-v4bx flag for both the
> vmlinux final link and the individual loadable modules.
> The module loader code already interprets the R_ARM_V4BX relocations
> in loadable modules and converts bx instructions into mov even
> when running on ARMv4T or ARMv5 processors. This is now redundant
> when we pass --fix-v4bx to the linker for building modules, but
> I see no harm in leaving the current implementation and doing both.
>
Are you sure --fix-v4bx is taken into account during a partial link?
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> Please test by making the -march=armv4t switch unconditional
> and see if that results in a working kernel
>
> arch/arm/Makefile | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/Makefile b/arch/arm/Makefile
> index e83f5161fdd8..33b7eb4502aa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/Makefile
> @@ -19,6 +19,11 @@ LDFLAGS_vmlinux += --be8
> KBUILD_LDFLAGS_MODULE += --be8
> endif
>
> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_CPU_32v4),y)
> +LDFLAGS_vmlinux += $(call ld-option,--fix-v4bx)
> +LDFLAGS_MODULE += $(call ld-option,--fix-v4bx)
> +endif
> +
> ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM_MODULE_PLTS),y)
> KBUILD_LDFLAGS_MODULE += -T $(srctree)/arch/arm/kernel/module.lds
> endif
> @@ -76,7 +81,7 @@ arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v6K) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=6 $(call cc-option,-march=armv6k,
> endif
> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v5) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=5 $(call cc-option,-march=armv5te,-march=armv4t)
> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4T) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4t
> -arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4
> +arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 $(call cc-option,-march=armv4,-march=armv4t)
> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v3) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=3 -march=armv3
>
> # Evaluate arch cc-option calls now
> @@ -94,8 +99,8 @@ tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM922T) =-mtune=arm9tdmi
> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM925T) =-mtune=arm9tdmi
> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_ARM926T) =-mtune=arm9tdmi
> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_FA526) =-mtune=arm9tdmi
> -tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA110) =-mtune=strongarm110
> -tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA1100) =-mtune=strongarm1100
> +tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA110) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=strongarm110)
> +tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA1100) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=strongarm1100)
> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_XSCALE) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=xscale,-mtune=strongarm110) -Wa,-mcpu=xscale
> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_XSC3) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=xscale,-mtune=strongarm110) -Wa,-mcpu=xscale
Shouldn't these two be updated as well?
> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_FEROCEON) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=marvell-f,-mtune=xscale)
> --
> 2.9.0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc
2017-12-20 13:46 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2017-12-20 14:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2017-12-20 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 20 December 2017 at 13:00, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> For consistency, I'm passing the --fix-v4bx flag for both the
>> vmlinux final link and the individual loadable modules.
>> The module loader code already interprets the R_ARM_V4BX relocations
>> in loadable modules and converts bx instructions into mov even
>> when running on ARMv4T or ARMv5 processors. This is now redundant
>> when we pass --fix-v4bx to the linker for building modules, but
>> I see no harm in leaving the current implementation and doing both.
>>
>
> Are you sure --fix-v4bx is taken into account during a partial link?
No. I made the patch a long time ago, so I don't remember what exactly
led me to this decision, but it should be fine as long as the linker
does the transformation at least once.
>> +tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA110) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=strongarm110)
>> +tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_SA1100) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=strongarm1100)
>> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_XSCALE) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=xscale,-mtune=strongarm110) -Wa,-mcpu=xscale
>> tune-$(CONFIG_CPU_XSC3) =$(call cc-option,-mtune=xscale,-mtune=strongarm110) -Wa,-mcpu=xscale
>
> Shouldn't these two be updated as well?
All compilers that drop -mtune=strongarm110 support for now still support
mtune=xscale, so I don't think we need to change them. One thing we could
consider is passing -mtune=xscale when building for StrongARM, if that
produces better code than the default -mtune=arm7tdmi, but from looking
at the gcc-8 sources, it's not clear if that's better or worse. Neither arm7tdmi
nor strongarm have a custom cost function, but xscale has. The difference
between arm7tdmi and strongarm110 tuning is just the maximum number of
conditional instructions (5 vs 3).
A much bigger impact might be to tune for arm9e when building a kernel for
ARM926, no idea why we don't already do that (we do it for arm946, which
nobody really uses). Also, gcc has optimizations for many ARMv7-A cores
that we could use if we decide to make them known in Kconfig.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc
2017-12-20 13:00 [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-20 13:46 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2017-12-21 16:57 ` Linus Walleij
2017-12-21 17:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-12-21 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> gcc-6.0 and later marks support for ARMv3 and ARMv4 as 'deprecated',
> meaning that this is expected to be removed at some point in the future,
> with gcc-8.0 as the earliest.
>
> When building the kernel, the difference between ARMv4 and ARMv4T
> is relatively small because the kernel never runs THUMB instructions
> on ARMv4T and does not need any support for interworking.
>
> For any future compiler that does not support -march=armv4, we now
> fall back to -march=armv4t as the architecture level selection,
> but keep using -march=armv4 by default as long as that is supported
> by the compiler.
>
> Similarly, the -mtune=strongarm110 and -mtune=strongarm1100 options
> will go away at the same time as -march=armv4, so this adds a check
> to see if the compiler supports them, falling back to no -mtune
> option otherwise.
>
> Compiling with -march=armv4t leads the compiler to using 'bx reg'
> instructions instead of 'mov pc,reg'. This is not supported on
> ARMv4 based CPUs, but the linker can work around this by rewriting
> those instructions to the ARMv4 version if we pass --fix-v4bx
> to the linker. This should work with binutils-2.15 (released
> May 2004) or higher, and we can probably assume that anyone using
> gcc-7.x will have a much more recent binutils version as well.
>
> However, in order to still allow users of old toolchains to link
> the kernel, we only pass the option to linkers that support it,
> based on a $(ld-option ...) call. I'm intentionally passing the
> flag to all linker versions here regardless of whether it's needed
> or not, so we can more easily spot any regressions if something
> goes wrong.
>
> For consistency, I'm passing the --fix-v4bx flag for both the
> vmlinux final link and the individual loadable modules.
> The module loader code already interprets the R_ARM_V4BX relocations
> in loadable modules and converts bx instructions into mov even
> when running on ARMv4T or ARMv5 processors. This is now redundant
> when we pass --fix-v4bx to the linker for building modules, but
> I see no harm in leaving the current implementation and doing both.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> Please test by making the -march=armv4t switch unconditional
> and see if that results in a working kernel
I did this:
diff --git a/arch/arm/Makefile b/arch/arm/Makefile
index 66e46aec0cd0..3944ecd6cd31 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/Makefile
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v6K)
=-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=6 $(call cc-option,-march=armv6k,
endif
arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v5) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=5 $(call
cc-option,-march=armv5te,-march=armv4t)
arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4T) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4t
-arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 $(call
cc-option,-march=armv4,-march=armv4t)
+arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4t
arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v3) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=3 -march=armv3
Built and booted on the Gemini platform.
It crashes immediately and goes into the boot loader
on thos FA-526 based platform.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc
2017-12-21 16:57 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2017-12-21 17:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-21 20:02 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2017-12-21 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
>> gcc-6.0 and later marks support for ARMv3 and ARMv4 as 'deprecated',
>> meaning that this is expected to be removed at some point in the future,
>> with gcc-8.0 as the earliest.
>>
>> When building the kernel, the difference between ARMv4 and ARMv4T
>> is relatively small because the kernel never runs THUMB instructions
>> on ARMv4T and does not need any support for interworking.
>>
>> For any future compiler that does not support -march=armv4, we now
>> fall back to -march=armv4t as the architecture level selection,
>> but keep using -march=armv4 by default as long as that is supported
>> by the compiler.
>>
>> Similarly, the -mtune=strongarm110 and -mtune=strongarm1100 options
>> will go away at the same time as -march=armv4, so this adds a check
>> to see if the compiler supports them, falling back to no -mtune
>> option otherwise.
>>
>> Compiling with -march=armv4t leads the compiler to using 'bx reg'
>> instructions instead of 'mov pc,reg'. This is not supported on
>> ARMv4 based CPUs, but the linker can work around this by rewriting
>> those instructions to the ARMv4 version if we pass --fix-v4bx
>> to the linker. This should work with binutils-2.15 (released
>> May 2004) or higher, and we can probably assume that anyone using
>> gcc-7.x will have a much more recent binutils version as well.
>>
>> However, in order to still allow users of old toolchains to link
>> the kernel, we only pass the option to linkers that support it,
>> based on a $(ld-option ...) call. I'm intentionally passing the
>> flag to all linker versions here regardless of whether it's needed
>> or not, so we can more easily spot any regressions if something
>> goes wrong.
>>
>> For consistency, I'm passing the --fix-v4bx flag for both the
>> vmlinux final link and the individual loadable modules.
>> The module loader code already interprets the R_ARM_V4BX relocations
>> in loadable modules and converts bx instructions into mov even
>> when running on ARMv4T or ARMv5 processors. This is now redundant
>> when we pass --fix-v4bx to the linker for building modules, but
>> I see no harm in leaving the current implementation and doing both.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> ---
>> Please test by making the -march=armv4t switch unconditional
>> and see if that results in a working kernel
>
> I did this:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/Makefile b/arch/arm/Makefile
> index 66e46aec0cd0..3944ecd6cd31 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/Makefile
> @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v6K)
> =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=6 $(call cc-option,-march=armv6k,
> endif
> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v5) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=5 $(call
> cc-option,-march=armv5te,-march=armv4t)
> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4T) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4t
> -arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 $(call
> cc-option,-march=armv4,-march=armv4t)
> +arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4t
> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v3) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=3 -march=armv3
>
> Built and booted on the Gemini platform.
>
> It crashes immediately and goes into the boot loader
> on thos FA-526 based platform.
Hmm, maybe the decompressor needs the fixup separately. Can you try
something like this completely untested patch on top?
Arnd
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile
b/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile
index f0548b6948f1..0e141b2cae98 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile
@@ -134,6 +134,11 @@ endif
ifeq ($(CONFIG_CPU_ENDIAN_BE8),y)
LDFLAGS_vmlinux += --be8
endif
+
+ifdef CONFIG_CPU_32v4
+LDFLAGS_vmlinux += --fix-v4bx
+endif
+
# ?
LDFLAGS_vmlinux += -p
# Report unresolved symbol references
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc
2017-12-21 17:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2017-12-21 20:02 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-12-21 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>
>>> gcc-6.0 and later marks support for ARMv3 and ARMv4 as 'deprecated',
>>> meaning that this is expected to be removed at some point in the future,
>>> with gcc-8.0 as the earliest.
>>>
>>> When building the kernel, the difference between ARMv4 and ARMv4T
>>> is relatively small because the kernel never runs THUMB instructions
>>> on ARMv4T and does not need any support for interworking.
>>>
>>> For any future compiler that does not support -march=armv4, we now
>>> fall back to -march=armv4t as the architecture level selection,
>>> but keep using -march=armv4 by default as long as that is supported
>>> by the compiler.
>>>
>>> Similarly, the -mtune=strongarm110 and -mtune=strongarm1100 options
>>> will go away at the same time as -march=armv4, so this adds a check
>>> to see if the compiler supports them, falling back to no -mtune
>>> option otherwise.
>>>
>>> Compiling with -march=armv4t leads the compiler to using 'bx reg'
>>> instructions instead of 'mov pc,reg'. This is not supported on
>>> ARMv4 based CPUs, but the linker can work around this by rewriting
>>> those instructions to the ARMv4 version if we pass --fix-v4bx
>>> to the linker. This should work with binutils-2.15 (released
>>> May 2004) or higher, and we can probably assume that anyone using
>>> gcc-7.x will have a much more recent binutils version as well.
>>>
>>> However, in order to still allow users of old toolchains to link
>>> the kernel, we only pass the option to linkers that support it,
>>> based on a $(ld-option ...) call. I'm intentionally passing the
>>> flag to all linker versions here regardless of whether it's needed
>>> or not, so we can more easily spot any regressions if something
>>> goes wrong.
>>>
>>> For consistency, I'm passing the --fix-v4bx flag for both the
>>> vmlinux final link and the individual loadable modules.
>>> The module loader code already interprets the R_ARM_V4BX relocations
>>> in loadable modules and converts bx instructions into mov even
>>> when running on ARMv4T or ARMv5 processors. This is now redundant
>>> when we pass --fix-v4bx to the linker for building modules, but
>>> I see no harm in leaving the current implementation and doing both.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>> ---
>>> Please test by making the -march=armv4t switch unconditional
>>> and see if that results in a working kernel
>>
>> I did this:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Makefile b/arch/arm/Makefile
>> index 66e46aec0cd0..3944ecd6cd31 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/Makefile
>> +++ b/arch/arm/Makefile
>> @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v6K)
>> =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=6 $(call cc-option,-march=armv6k,
>> endif
>> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v5) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=5 $(call
>> cc-option,-march=armv5te,-march=armv4t)
>> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4T) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4t
>> -arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 $(call
>> cc-option,-march=armv4,-march=armv4t)
>> +arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v4) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=4 -march=armv4t
>> arch-$(CONFIG_CPU_32v3) =-D__LINUX_ARM_ARCH__=3 -march=armv3
>>
>> Built and booted on the Gemini platform.
>>
>> It crashes immediately and goes into the boot loader
>> on thos FA-526 based platform.
>
> Hmm, maybe the decompressor needs the fixup separately. Can you try
> something like this completely untested patch on top?
>
> Arnd
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile
> b/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile
> index f0548b6948f1..0e141b2cae98 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/compressed/Makefile
> @@ -134,6 +134,11 @@ endif
> ifeq ($(CONFIG_CPU_ENDIAN_BE8),y)
> LDFLAGS_vmlinux += --be8
> endif
> +
> +ifdef CONFIG_CPU_32v4
> +LDFLAGS_vmlinux += --fix-v4bx
> +endif
> +
Yes this work! The kernel and userspace comes up.
With this folded in:
Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> for FA526
I will try to test it on SA110 (NetWinder) tomorrow.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-12-21 20:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-12-20 13:00 [PATCH, RFT] ARM: use --fix-v4bx to allow building ARMv4 with future gcc Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-20 13:46 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-12-20 14:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-21 16:57 ` Linus Walleij
2017-12-21 17:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2017-12-21 20:02 ` Linus Walleij
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox