On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 12:29 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Apr 9, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 04:24 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > >> On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:56 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >> > >>> Use the new MSR_64BIT in a few places. Some of these are already ifdef'ed > >>> for BOOKE vs BOOKS, but it's still clearer, MSR_SF does not immediately > >>> parse as "MSR bit for 64bit". > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mich...@ellerman.id.au> > >>> --- > >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/head_64.S | 2 +- > >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_64.c | 4 ++-- > >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c | 2 +- > >>> arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c | 14 +++++++------- > >>> 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> However MSR_ISF does ;) > > > > I'm not sure I parse that one :-) Any ways ISF is "interrupt SF" and has > > no equivalent in the MSR for BookE (it's elsewhere, EPCR no ?). > > I was just saying that if _SF doesn't parse as 64-bit mode, ISF doesn't parse > as interrupt into 64-bit mode :)
Ah right :-) But it's not used nearly as much and has no equivalent on BookE so I wouldn't bother. The deal here is really more about getting a single definition for both subarchs. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
