From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.242]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA63DDE03 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 04:34:27 +1100 (EST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so660934anc.78 for ; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:34:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:34:25 -0700 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Bernhard Reiter" , "David Gibson" Subject: Re: compile quirk linux-2.6.24 (with workaround) In-Reply-To: <200802041126.21989.bernhard@intevation.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <200802031729.12069.bernhard@intevation.de> <20080204095121.GA18167@powerlinux.fr> <200802041126.21989.bernhard@intevation.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2/4/08, Bernhard Reiter wrote: > On Monday 04 February 2008 10:51, Sven Luther wrote: > > You should normally not need to build the 4xx bootloader part. Make sure > > that, i don't know why this happens. Can you look into > > arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile, to see what option enables the 4xx build, > > and make sure it is disabled in the main config ? > > I have tried to do this, but it looks like it is just hardcoded into the > Makefile as you can see from the patch. There is probably more that I do not > understand - thus my report with on the workaround. The policy decision was made early on to build all of the bootwrapper bits regardless of whether they are needed by the configured platform or not. AFAIK the reason for this is to increase the variety of platforms and compilers for with the bootwrapper bits are tested on. Unfortunately, there are bits of 4xx bootwrappers which require processor specific instructions for manipulating the cache and DCR. If we're supporting compilers which don't have 440 support, then we'll need to disable the build of those bits when they aren't needed, but I don't know the best way to go about this. David, thoughts? Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.