On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 02:07:17PM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote: > On 2 November 2016 at 14:03, Will Deacon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:44:14PM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote: > >> From: Markus Mayer <[email protected]> > >> > >> The new errata check leads to a warning with some older versions of the > >> linker that do know how to work around the errata, but still use the > >> original name of the command line option: --fix-cortex-a53. The commit > >> in question that changed the name of the option can be found at [1]. > >> It looks like only "gold" is affected by this rename. Traditional "ld" > >> isn't. (There, the argument was always called --fix-cortex-a53-843419.) > >> > >> To allow older versions of gold to properly handle the erratum if they > >> can, check whether ld supports the old name of this option in addition > >> to checking the new one. > >> > >> [1] > >> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=7a2a1c793578a8468604e661dda025ecb8d0bd20;hp=cfbf0e3c5b637d66b2b1aeadecae9c187b825b2f > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <[email protected]> > > > > If newer versions of gold accept the correct option name, why do we care? > > Because Documentation/Changes states that the minimum requirement for > binutils is 2.12. Right now, that is not really true. And not > everybody can always use the newest toolchain, for various reasons.
Well the kernel still builds, right? Can binutils 2.12 even work around 843419? For people who can't use a recent toolchain, then they don't get erratum workaround and we warn them about it. > The question I am asking is: What do we have to lose by supporting both > options? We end up passing "--fix-cortex-a53" to the linker, without knowing what it might do in the future. Will
