compile quirk linux-2.6.24 (with workaround)

Josh Boyer jwboyer at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Wed Feb 6 02:15:48 EST 2008


On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:39:26 +0100
Sven Luther <sven at powerlinux.fr> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 07:08:33AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:51:21 +0100
> > Sven Luther <sven at powerlinux.fr> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 05:29:05PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > > Dear linux powerpc Maintainers and Users,
> > > > 
> > > > recently I have tried to compile a new kernel on a Debian sarge ppc
> > > > system (PowerBook5,6 MacRISC3 Power Macintosh).
> > > 
> > > This is a G4 based system.
> > > 
> > > > The build system bailed out with
> > > >        BOOTCC  arch/powerpc/boot/4xx.o
> > > >         cc1: error: bad value (440) for -mcpu= switch
> > > >         make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/4xx.o] Fehler 1
> > > > 
> > > > I have tracked this a few steps and the attached patch made the compile for me
> > > > as my compiler gcc-Version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13) 
> > > > cannot produce code for 4xx it seems.
> > > 
> > > 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 ?
> > 
> > That's not true.  All the wrapper bits are built for every board always.
> 
> Yes, which is why it fails. But Should they not be conditionally built
> upon including support or not for the actual board ? 

One would think so.

> 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.

josh



More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list