lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:20:57 +0000 From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> To: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org> CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: e500: Fix compilation with gcc e500 compiler Le 10/07/2022 à 19:57, Pali Rohár a écrit : > On Sunday 10 July 2022 17:38:33 Christophe Leroy wrote: >> Le 09/07/2022 à 12:23, Pali Rohár a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> -ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64 >>>>> ifdef CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN >>>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += -mcpu=power8 >>>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += $(call cc-option,-mtune=power9,-mtune=power8) >>>>> +CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) += -mcpu=power8 >>>>> +CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) += $(call cc-option,-mtune=power9,-mtune=power8) >>>>> else >>>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += $(call cc-option,-mtune=power7,$(call cc-option,-mtune=power5)) >>>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += $(call cc-option,-mcpu=power5,-mcpu=power4) >>>>> -endif >>>>> -else ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64 >>>>> -CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU) += -mcpu=powerpc64 >>>>> +CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) += $(call cc-option,-mtune=power7,$(call cc-option,-mtune=power5)) >>>>> +CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64) += $(call cc-option,-mcpu=power5,-mcpu=power4) >>>> >>>> So before that change I got -mcpu=power9 >>>> >>>> Now I get -mtune=power7 -mcpu=power5 -mcpu=power9 >>> >>> I did it like Arnd wrote. >>> >>> And seems that it does not work and now is fully out of the scope of the >>> original issue. Now I'm really lost here. >>> >>> So I nobody comes with better solution, I would prefer to stick with my >>> original version which targets _only_ e500 cores. >>> >>> Any other suggestion? >> >> I sent a patch based on the TARGET_CPU logic, does it work for you ? >> >> Christophe > > Perfect, it works! Thank you. > Thanks. I sent a series including this patch with your comments taken into account. Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists