From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <B07421@freescale.com>
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com
 (ch1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.183])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com",
 Issuer "Microsoft Secure Server Authority" (verified OK))
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D471007D3
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:41:58 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <4EA97BB1.8020009@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:41:37 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [44x] Enable CONFIG_RELOCATABLE for PPC44x
References: <20111010094627.16589.52367.stgit@suzukikp.in.ibm.com>
 <20111010095514.16589.85241.stgit@suzukikp.in.ibm.com>
 <4E9332AA.1050307@freescale.com> <4E943C70.4030106@in.ibm.com>
 <1318428902.3782.9.camel@nimitz> <4EA6D701.3030603@freescale.com>
 <4EA85B95.9030802@in.ibm.com> <4EA85C85.7090404@freescale.com>
 <4EA919AE.4020508@in.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EA919AE.4020508@in.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>, tmarri@apm.com,
 Mahesh Jagannath Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
 linux ppc dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On 10/27/2011 03:43 AM, Suzuki Poulose wrote:
> On 10/27/11 00:46, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 10/26/2011 02:12 PM, Suzuki Poulose wrote:
>>> I have renamed the new type of relocation to RELOCATABLE_PPC32_PIE. The
>>> patches
>>> were posted yesterday. Please let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> I think it would make more sense to rename the existing behavior (maybe
>> something like DYNAMIC_MEMSTART -- if there's even enough overhead to
>> make it worth being configurable at all), since it's not fully
>> relocatable and since 64-bit already uses RELOCATABLE to mean PIE.
> 
> I think leaving the current behaviour as it is, and adding the PIE as an
> additional configuration option would be safe and wouldn't disturb the
> existing dependencies.

That's how things grow to be an unmaintainable mess.  AFAICT, what
you're doing is the same as what 64-bit does for RELOCATABLE.  If
they're doing the same thing, they should be called the same thing.
Whereas 64-bit and e500 are currently doing different things for
RELOCATABLE -- so they should be called different things.

> ( CRASH_DUMP etc. depend on RELOCATABLE for archs which work fine ).

A simple grep should be able to sort out such dependencies on the name.

-Scott