Building ppc40x_defconfig leads to following error
CC arch/powerpc/kernel/idle.o
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:67: Error: unrecognized opcode: `wrteei'
{standard input}:78: Error: unrecognized opcode: `wrteei'
Add -mcpu=440 by default and alternatively 464 and 476.
Once that's done, -mcpu=powerpc is only for book3s/32 now.
But then comes
CC arch/powerpc/kernel/io.o
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:198: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:230: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:245: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:254: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:273: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:396: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:404: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:423: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:512: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:520: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:539: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:628: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:636: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
{standard input}:655: Error: unrecognized opcode: `eieio'
Fix it by replacing eieio by mbar on booke.
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h | 2 ++
arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/pgtable.h | 2 +-
arch/powerpc/include/asm/synch.h | 5 ++++-
arch/powerpc/mm/nohash/tlb_low.S | 4 ++--
arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c | 12 ++++++++++--
6 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
index f0e687236484..ef2d8b15eaab 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -42,6 +42,8 @@
/* The sub-arch has lwsync */
#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_E500MC)
# define SMPWMB LWSYNC
+#elif defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
+# define SMPWMB mbar
#else
# define SMPWMB eieio
#endif
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/pgtable.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/pgtable.h
index ac75f4ab0dba..b499da6c1a99 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/pgtable.h
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static inline void __set_pte_at(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC32) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PTE_64BIT) && !percpu) {
__asm__ __volatile__("\
stw%X0 %2,%0\n\
- eieio\n\
+ mbar\n\
stw%X1 %L2,%1"
: "=m" (*ptep), "=m" (*((unsigned char *)ptep+4))
: "r" (pte) : "memory");
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/synch.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/synch.h
index 1d67bc8d7bc6..7130176d8cb8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/synch.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/synch.h
@@ -14,7 +14,10 @@ extern void do_lwsync_fixups(unsigned long value, void *fixup_start,
static inline void eieio(void)
{
- __asm__ __volatile__ ("eieio" : : : "memory");
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BOOKE))
+ __asm__ __volatile__ ("mbar" : : : "memory");
+ else
+ __asm__ __volatile__ ("eieio" : : : "memory");
}
static inline void isync(void)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/nohash/tlb_low.S b/arch/powerpc/mm/nohash/tlb_low.S
index dd39074de9af..d62b613a0d5d 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/nohash/tlb_low.S
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/nohash/tlb_low.S
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ _GLOBAL(_tlbivax_bcast)
isync
PPC_TLBIVAX(0, R3)
isync
- eieio
+ mbar
tlbsync
BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
b 1f
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ _GLOBAL(_tlbivax_bcast)
rlwimi r4,r6,MAS6_SIND_SHIFT,MAS6_SIND
1: mtspr SPRN_MAS6,r4 /* assume AS=0 for now */
PPC_TLBIVAX(0,R3)
- eieio
+ mbar
tlbsync
sync
wrtee r10
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype b/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
index e14000557ebd..3cc8452b8660 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig.cputype
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ config GENERIC_CPU
config POWERPC_CPU
bool "Generic 32 bits powerpc"
- depends on PPC32 && !PPC_8xx && !PPC_85xx && !40x
+ depends on PPC_BOOK3S_32
config CELL_CPU
bool "Cell Broadband Engine"
@@ -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
+
config 860_CPU
bool "8xx family"
depends on PPC_8xx
@@ -228,6 +240,9 @@ config TARGET_CPU
default "power8" if POWER8_CPU
default "power9" if POWER9_CPU
default "405" if 405_CPU
+ default "440" if 440_CPU
+ default "464" if 464_CPU
+ default "476" if 476_CPU
default "860" if 860_CPU
default "e300c2" if E300C2_CPU
default "e300c3" if E300C3_CPU
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c
index 1bfc9afa8a1a..4647c6074f3b 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c
@@ -69,10 +69,10 @@
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(fsl_rio_config_lock);
-#define __fsl_read_rio_config(x, addr, err, op) \
+#define ___fsl_read_rio_config(x, addr, err, op, barrier) \
__asm__ __volatile__( \
"1: "op" %1,0(%2)\n" \
- " eieio\n" \
+ " "barrier"\n" \
"2:\n" \
".section .fixup,\"ax\"\n" \
"3: li %1,-1\n" \
@@ -83,6 +83,14 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(fsl_rio_config_lock);
: "=r" (err), "=r" (x) \
: "b" (addr), "i" (-EFAULT), "0" (err))
+#ifdef CONFIG_BOOKE
+#define __fsl_read_rio_config(x, addr, err, op) \
+ ___fsl_read_rio_config(x, addr, err, op, "mbar")
+#else
+#define __fsl_read_rio_config(x, addr, err, op) \
+ ___fsl_read_rio_config(x, addr, err, op, "eieio")
+#endif
+
void __iomem *rio_regs_win;
void __iomem *rmu_regs_win;
resource_size_t rio_law_start;
--
2.36.1
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 4:19 PM Christophe Leroy
<[email protected]> 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?
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.
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.
Arnd
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
> <[email protected]> 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
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Is there any value in building for -mcpu=440 or -mcpu=464 when targeting a 476?
The original 440 had a very short pipeline. Later IBM 4xx have a longer
pipeline. Getting this right (with -mtune=, or just with -mcpu=) is
important for performance. So, no?
> 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.
>
> 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.
-mcpu= is used as the default for -mtune=, so that is always a
consideration. PPC464 is treated the same as PPC440 in binutils as
well, so I don't think there is any issue there.
Segher