* new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel? @ 2005-02-02 18:39 Chris Friesen 2005-02-03 5:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chris Friesen @ 2005-02-02 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linuxppc-dev 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel? 2005-02-02 18:39 new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel? Chris Friesen @ 2005-02-03 5:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2005-02-03 5:55 ` Kumar Gala ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2005-02-03 5:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Friesen; +Cc: linuxppc-dev list 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel? 2005-02-03 5:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2005-02-03 5:55 ` Kumar Gala 2005-02-03 15:02 ` Chris Friesen 2005-02-04 0:55 ` Segher Boessenkool 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Kumar Gala @ 2005-02-03 5:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: linuxppc-dev list, Chris Friesen 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel? 2005-02-03 5:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2005-02-03 5:55 ` Kumar Gala @ 2005-02-03 15:02 ` Chris Friesen 2005-02-04 10:11 ` David Woodhouse 2005-02-04 0:55 ` Segher Boessenkool 2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chris Friesen @ 2005-02-03 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: linuxppc-dev list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel? 2005-02-03 15:02 ` Chris Friesen @ 2005-02-04 10:11 ` David Woodhouse 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: David Woodhouse @ 2005-02-04 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Friesen; +Cc: linuxppc-dev list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel? 2005-02-03 5:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2005-02-03 5:55 ` Kumar Gala 2005-02-03 15:02 ` Chris Friesen @ 2005-02-04 0:55 ` Segher Boessenkool 2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Segher Boessenkool @ 2005-02-04 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: Chris Friesen, linuxppc-dev list > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-02-04 13:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-02-02 18:39 new binutils breaks "tlbie" instruction in kernel? Chris Friesen 2005-02-03 5:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt 2005-02-03 5:55 ` Kumar Gala 2005-02-03 15:02 ` Chris Friesen 2005-02-04 10:11 ` David Woodhouse 2005-02-04 0:55 ` Segher Boessenkool
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).