new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel?

new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel?

[Chris Friesen]

The "tlbie" instruction has a bit which may be set to indicate regular 
or large page size.  This used to be set via an optional second parameter.

Apparently some time between binutils versions 2.15.91.0.2 and 
2.15.92.0.2 a change went in to make this second parameter mandatory, 
which breaks the kernel ppc code.

What is the recommended way to fix this?  Do all binutils versions 
understand the second parameter, or will "sufficiently old" versions 
choke on it?


Thanks,

Chris

Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel?

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 12:39 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> The "tlbie" instruction has a bit which may be set to indicate regular 
> or large page size.  This used to be set via an optional second parameter.
> 
> Apparently some time between binutils versions 2.15.91.0.2 and 
> 2.15.92.0.2 a change went in to make this second parameter mandatory, 
> which breaks the kernel ppc code.
> 
> What is the recommended way to fix this?  Do all binutils versions 
> understand the second parameter, or will "sufficiently old" versions 
> choke on it?

Wasn't it fixed ?

Ben.

Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel?

[Kumar Gala]

Someone should just add some of our asm files into the ppc binutils=20
testsuite, why we cant seem to get a stability on this seems beyond me=20=

:)  Well, something else to add to the ppc kernel janitors list.

- kumar

On Feb 2, 2005, at 11:13 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 12:39 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>  > The "tlbie" instruction has a bit which may be set to indicate=20
> regular
> > or large page size.=A0 This used to be set via an optional second=20
> parameter.
>  >
> > Apparently some time between binutils versions 2.15.91.0.2 and
> > 2.15.92.0.2 a change went in to make this second parameter =
mandatory,
> > which breaks the kernel ppc code.
>  >
> > What is the recommended way to fix this?=A0 Do all binutils versions
> > understand the second parameter, or will "sufficiently old" versions
> > choke on it?
>
> Wasn't it fixed ?
>
> Ben.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
>  Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel?

[Chris Friesen]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 12:39 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> 
>>The "tlbie" instruction has a bit which may be set to indicate regular 
>>or large page size.  This used to be set via an optional second parameter.
>>
>>Apparently some time between binutils versions 2.15.91.0.2 and 
>>2.15.92.0.2 a change went in to make this second parameter mandatory, 
>>which breaks the kernel ppc code.

> Wasn't it fixed ?

Not sure what "it" you mean.  The current kernel code does not have the 
third parm.  I'm not sure about the latest binutils, but 2.15.92.0.2 is 
what a vendor wants to build on.

Chris

Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel?

[Segher Boessenkool]

> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 12:39 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> The "tlbie" instruction has a bit which may be set to indicate regular
>> or large page size.  This used to be set via an optional second 
>> parameter.
>>
>> Apparently some time between binutils versions 2.15.91.0.2 and
>> 2.15.92.0.2 a change went in to make this second parameter mandatory,
>> which breaks the kernel ppc code.

> Wasn't it fixed ?
>
> Ben.

My patch indeed was backed out.  If ever I find the time I'll get it 
back
in though, but without affecting tlbie (the syntax for tlbie is 
different
when you look at the PEM or at the Books; the patch was supposed to 
handle
a problem in the cmpXX insns only).  Someone should get the PEM and the
architecture books back in line ;-)


Segher

Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel?

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 09:02 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > Wasn't it fixed ?
> 
> Not sure what "it" you mean.  The current kernel code does not have the 
> third parm.  I'm not sure about the latest binutils, but 2.15.92.0.2 is 
> what a vendor wants to build on.

Binutils was changed in early September last year to require the extra
argument. We objected, and it was fixed again about a month later to
_not_ require the argument. If you're using 2.15.92.0.2, then apply this
patch to it:

2004-10-09  Alan Modra  <amodra@bigpond.net.au>

	* ppc-opc.c: Revert 2004-09-09 change.

--- opcodes/ppc-opc.c	7 Oct 2004 15:34:08 -0000	1.76
+++ opcodes/ppc-opc.c	9 Oct 2004 01:21:03 -0000	1.77
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ const struct powerpc_operand powerpc_ope
 
   /* The L field in a D or X form instruction.  */
 #define L FXM4 + 1
-  { 1, 21, 0, 0, 0 },
+  { 1, 21, 0, 0, PPC_OPERAND_OPTIONAL },
 
   /* The LEV field in a POWER SC form instruction.  */
 #define LEV L + 1


-- 
dwmw2