From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95D9EC4321E for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2022 16:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NKHLQ0vmVz3f2w for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:31:42 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=sntzhLoR; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=145.40.68.75; helo=ams.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=pali@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=sntzhLoR; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NKHKR0VlQz3cFZ for ; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:30:51 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89AA2B81D02; Sat, 26 Nov 2022 16:30:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2EEDC433C1; Sat, 26 Nov 2022 16:30:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1669480247; bh=sqWiSF6NV8JR3VK6MeFWU8zmYfc8R/be4+Aqh8Ncm7k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=sntzhLoR9edtnKVKDY2Jxy6dRAIsHpUDdxDgN9obWtnnLG2rw0+R9yfZxNr0fiqNC G85wexaMJdTHn8LHvfeBILKgILG6CojyUKecsu0TN7rDRCQpTwPbzKoTYi5FcMbKeF 6EXZ9XUPSSkUrJAPkWUB57IXsxX8aHlx8+W0XBnbbnhsCyhIcp8rMtKfTC8eibqNSR ZP6AY8XJPjf7fba6qDQZSEqbLZDJw9sjuWzeJUMXpMRK7fkzSRg7p/4eaY/itLsb0K lfWE+rlHTHVMoycRc9YRF+kWd27+KsB8msGsE4ebLkV47pX/gdTkDQ7xaan051RQe2 UFa5hoViCpfMA== Received: by pali.im (Postfix) id B22537B2; Sat, 26 Nov 2022 17:30:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 17:30:44 +0100 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: Christophe Leroy Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/boot: Don't always pass -mcpu=powerpc when building 32-bit uImage Message-ID: <20221126163044.cnoccovve4a74a7l@pali> References: <20220820105200.30425-1-pali@kernel.org> <20220828095659.4061-1-pali@kernel.org> <20220828174135.rcql4uiunqbnn5gh@pali> <20220829085451.upubyo5e7uop72lb@pali> <20221009110652.h7senqesk7nabxmn@pali> <20221101221255.gwaem6w7upv545fw@pali> <00398948-d06c-3894-5be3-acb6cc09ff6b@csgroup.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <00398948-d06c-3894-5be3-acb6cc09ff6b@csgroup.eu> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Paul Mackerras , Joel Stanley , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wednesday 02 November 2022 14:05:35 Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 01/11/2022 à 23:12, Pali Rohár a écrit : > > On Sunday 09 October 2022 13:06:52 Pali Rohár wrote: > >> On Monday 29 August 2022 10:54:51 Pali Rohár wrote: > >>> On Sunday 28 August 2022 17:43:53 Christophe Leroy wrote: > >>>> Le 28/08/2022 à 19:41, Pali Rohár a écrit : > >>>>> On Sunday 28 August 2022 17:39:25 Christophe Leroy wrote: > >>>>>> Le 28/08/2022 à 19:33, Christophe Leroy a écrit : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Le 28/08/2022 à 11:56, Pali Rohár a écrit : > >>>>>>>> When CONFIG_TARGET_CPU is specified then pass its value to the compiler > >>>>>>>> -mcpu option. This fixes following build error when building kernel with > >>>>>>>> powerpc e500 SPE capable cross compilers: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>      BOOTAS  arch/powerpc/boot/crt0.o > >>>>>>>>    powerpc-linux-gnuspe-gcc: error: unrecognized argument in option > >>>>>>>> ‘-mcpu=powerpc’ > >>>>>>>>    powerpc-linux-gnuspe-gcc: note: valid arguments to ‘-mcpu=’ are: > >>>>>>>> 8540 8548 native > >>>>>>>>    make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile:231: > >>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/boot/crt0.o] Error 1 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> corenet64_smp_defconfig : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>   BOOTAS  arch/powerpc/boot/crt0.o > >>>>>>> powerpc64-linux-gcc: error: missing argument to '-mcpu=' > >>>>>>> make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile:237 : arch/powerpc/boot/crt0.o] > >>>>>>> Erreur 1 > >>>>>>> make: *** [arch/powerpc/Makefile:253 : uImage] Erreur 2 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Seems like in fact, E5500_CPU and E6500_CPU are not taken into account > >>>>>> in CONFIG_TARGET_CPU, and get special treatment directly in > >>>>>> arch/powerpc/Makefile. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This goes unnoticed because of CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_TARGET_CPU_BOOL) += > >>>>>> $(call cc-option,-mcpu=$(CONFIG_TARGET_CPU)) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think we need to fix that prior to your patch. > >>>>> > >>>>> It looks like that CONFIG_TARGET_CPU is broken. > >>>>> > >>>>> $ make ARCH=powerpc corenet64_smp_defconfig CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc64-linux-gnu- > >>>>> ... > >>>>> # configuration written to .config > >>>>> > >>>>> $ grep CONFIG_TARGET_CPU .config > >>>>> CONFIG_TARGET_CPU_BOOL=y > >>>>> > >>>>> CONFIG_TARGET_CPU_BOOL is set but CONFIG_TARGET_CPU not! > >>>> > >>>> Yes, because there is no default value for E5500_CPU and E6500_CPU. We > >>>> need to add one for each. > >>> > >>> I see... Will you prepare this fixup for your previous patch? > >>> > >>> And I think that following construct > >>> > >>> $(call cc-option,-mcpu=$(CONFIG_TARGET_CPU)) > >>> > >>> should be changed just to > >>> > >>> -mcpu=$(CONFIG_TARGET_CPU) > >>> > >>> Because if user specified that want build for specific target CPU, it > >>> should not be silently ignored. > >> > >> Christophe, should I do something in this area? > > > > Christophe, any input from your side? > > Hi, sorry I was on holiday until today. I'll try to have a look in the > coming days. Ok, Did you have a time to look at it?