linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/44x: Fix build failure with GCC 12 (unrecognized opcode: `wrteei')

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2970b49d-25cd-3c14-ed75-7558ac82df68@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:49:22 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] powerpc/44x: Fix build failure with GCC 12
 (unrecognized opcode: `wrteei')

Oops, I wanted to include Pali and Segher when I sent the series, I 
prepared a script including them but used the wrong script at the end.

Le 11/07/2022 à 17:05, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:19 PM Christophe Leroy
> <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
>> @@ -183,6 +183,18 @@ config 405_CPU
>>          bool "40x family"
>>          depends on 40x
>>
>> +config 440_CPU
>> +       bool "440 (44x family)"
>> +       depends on 44x
>> +
>> +config 464_CPU
>> +       bool "464 (44x family)"
>> +       depends on 44x
>> +
>> +config 476_CPU
>> +       bool "476 (47x family)"
>> +       depends on PPC_47x
> 
> Is there any value in building for -mcpu=440 or -mcpu=464 when targeting a 476?

No idea, maybe not.

> Maybe add another !PPC_47x dependency for the first two. Ideally we would also
> enforce that 440/464 based boards cannot be selected together with 476, though
> I guess that is a separate issue.

Yes can do that.

By the way, 440/464 boards get excluded from kernel/cputable.c when 47x 
is selected

> 
> Is there a practical difference between 440 and 464 when building kernels?
> gcc seems to treat them the same way, so maybe one option for both is enough
> here.
> 

I don't know.

Christophe