From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Owens To: Tom Rini Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: 2.4.9-ac12 ppc ftr_fixup In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:04:04 MST." <20010826200404.E1481@cpe-24-221-152-185.az.sprintbbd.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:13:42 +1000 Message-ID: <21473.998882022@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:04:04 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: >On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 12:47:57PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: >> do_cpu_ftr_fixups() replaces unsupported code with NOP, based on the >> table from __start___ftr_fixup to __stop___ftr_fixup which contains all >> the data marked as section(__ftr_fixup). Fine, but it only handles >> section __ftr_fixup data in the kernel, it does not write NOP over >> __ftr_fixup data in modules. So any code marked as section __ftr_fixup >> in a module executes unchanged. Unless I am missing something, that is >> a problem. > >After a bit more digging, I'm pretty sure it's not much of a problem. >get_cycles seems to be either a) SMP or b) DRM or c) arcnet related. >a and b aren't an issue for 601 (no SMP and possible but unlikely that >DRM will work on a machine w/ a 601). If there's an arcnet PCI card, I suppose >it could be an issue then... Anyhow... It is more than just get_cycles(). Look at the places that ftr is used, fgrep -r BEGIN_FTR_SECTION include/asm-ppc* arch/ppc* If any of that code ends up in a module then the problem exists. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/