On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:33:35 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 11:59 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > This breaks ARCH=ppc builds. Unfortunately, that tree shares the > > cputable.[ch] files, but has it's own traps.c. Which means you get > > lots of nice undefined references like below for example: > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o:(.init.data+0x44): undefined reference > > to `machine_check_4xx' > > arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o:(.init.data+0x8c): undefined reference > > to `machine_check_4xx' > > arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o:(.init.data+0xd4): undefined reference > > to `machine_check_4xx' > > > > Because the cputable entries for the processors are setting > > the .machine_check function and it's never built. > > > > I'm not sure which would be easier, making arch/ppc use traps.c from > > arch/powerpc, or adding similar functionality there. > > Split cputable.c ? I hate arch/ppc sharing files ... Or I could port the > changes to arch/ppc. I don't want to use the same traps.c file. Sharing > file is just a pain every time we do major changes. Splitting cputable.c at this point would be rather annoying, given the number of changes we've made to arch/ppc recently to accommodate for it being shared. Porting the changes to arch/ppc sounds like the most reasonable path. I can't wait for arch/ppc to die. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
