From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:12:58 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Olaf Hering Cc: Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix missing option in binutils version check Message-ID: <20040615161258.GA14528@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040605074341.GA15279@suse.de> <20040608112556.GA21447@suse.de> <20040610001605.GH18212@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040614091530.GA18482@suse.de> <20040614162359.GA7798@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040614173841.GA3247@suse.de> <20040614180734.GB3247@suse.de> <20040614205537.GB7798@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040614211931.GA21113@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040614211931.GA21113@suse.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:19:31PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, Tom Rini wrote: > > > ... except that we can have 'dssall' even when CONFIG_ALTIVEC=n, so we > > need it really on CONFIG_6xx. > > switch_mm() has it in CONFIG_ALTIVEC, so checking for CONFIG_ALTIVEC=y > looks correct to me. arch/ppc/kernel/l2cr.S unconditionally has 'dssall', and this file is compiled on all CONFIG_6xx builds. > > But more importantly, why did you break the check to stop people with > > broken binutils from trying to compile the kernel, and not fix the rest > > of the breakage ? > > What exactly is broken in the old binutils? They do not understand 'dssall' (and a few other) instructions. So in 2.4 we didn't call them directly, but had something along the lines of: #ifndef DSSALL #define DSSALL 0x........ #endif Using dssall was just a choice of convenience. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/