@alfredo.junior_eldorado.org.br and I found out that a kernel linked with lld won't boot if the .toc section is merged into .got.
Also note that the ldscript change was part of the original patch by @git_bdragon.rtk0.net, but was removed when merging with @jhibbits changes (D19574).

• Do not ommit .toc section when linking

Ok, thanks for the explanation, then it LGTM.

Patch updated, merged with parts already commited

Looks good overall, but check the comments below.

LGTM.
I see this is basically a subset of D19352, with the exception of booke/locore.S, right?
BTW, I need to come back to D19352 and refactor it.

In D19634#420545, @jhibbits wrote:

I'm on the fence between interrupt.c and trap.c. I put it in interrupt.c for the following reasons:
a) Avoid duplicating code between the user and kernel checks
b) Avoid enabling the EE bit when handling the HMI
Neither are critical, I think, so if there are strong feelings one way or another I can yield to it.

The code looks good to me.
But I'm not sure if it is better to handle this in interrupt.c or trap.c. Why do you think it fits better in interrupt.c?

I've confirmed that a kernel with this change compiles fine with base gcc + ld, and works fine on both pseries (qemu+kvm) and powernv (power8 machine).

Approving the minor '-' signal move to unblock this change.

@jhibbits, is this change good to go now? It would be nice to get DDB working on boot.