On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:24:38 -0700
"Grant Likely" [off-list ref] wrote:
On 2/5/08, Josh Boyer [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
I mean, if you have not included 4xx support in the kernel, as is the
case here, it does not make sense to add the 4xx bootwrapper code, no ?
It does, in a manner. There are both generic and platform specific
pieces to the bootwrapper. Having everything always built helps keep
the generic bits from breaking, which is important as they're often
tightly coupled. That's at least the reason I can think of.
The powerpc maintainers have been over this quite a bit and I don't see
it changing anytime soon.
That would mean we're dropping support for compilers which can't build
405/440 specific wrapper bits (or other core specific quirks that need
to go in the wrapper) That doesn't sound appropriate to me.
No it doesn't. At least not yet. I said I'd try to come up with a
patch soon-ish. We haven't failed!(yet) Also, this isn't a
core-specific quirk. It's an architected instruction of Book III-E in
the PowerPC ISA. I can't help it if other chips don't implement this
wonderful control mechanism ;)
Taking a step back though, there will always be odd cases like this as
we move forward. Toolchain XXX will eventually not support instruction
YYYY which will eventually be used, etc. I'll try to make this
specific case work because it's scope is quite limited. But this
problem as a whole will still remain.
josh