Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 18:20:37 -0600
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
        Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
        =?utf-8?B?RsSBbmctcnXDrCBTw7JuZw==?= <maskray@google.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Subject: Re: Error: invalid switch -me200
Message-ID: <20201114002037.GW2672@gate.crashing.org>
References: <202011131146.g8dPLQDD-lkp@intel.com> <CAFP8O3LpSmxVnjHfQAN455k1ZRg3PbgZYhWr030evCq1T10k=Q@mail.gmail.com> <20201113190824.GA1477315@ubuntu-m3-large-x86> <CAKwvOdkEtTQhDRFRV_d66FyhQBe536vRbOW=fQjesiHz3dfeBA@mail.gmail.com> <20201113200444.GA1496675@ubuntu-m3-large-x86> <CAKwvOdkBSGPaKmQY1nERVe4_n19Q=MUtuwdond=FJAAF9N9Zhg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdkBSGPaKmQY1nERVe4_n19Q=MUtuwdond=FJAAF9N9Zhg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:14:18PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > Error: invalid switch -me200
> > > > Error: unrecognized option -me200
> > >
> > > 251 cpu-as-$(CONFIG_E200)   += -Wa,-me200
> > >
> > > Are those all broken configs, or is Kconfig messed up such that
> > > randconfig can select these when it should not?
> >
> > Hmmm, looks like this flag does not exist in mainline binutils? There is
> > a thread in 2010 about this that Segher commented on:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/9859E645-954D-4D07-8003-FFCD2391AB6E@kernel.crashing.org/
> >
> > Guess this config should be eliminated?

The help text for this config options says that e200 is used in 55xx,
and there *is* an -me5500 GAS flag (which probably does this same
thing, too).  But is any of this tested, or useful, or wanted?

Maybe Christophe knows, cc:ed.


Segher