On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On 11/28/2011 01:46 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: >>> On 11/28/2011 10:23 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Since you're fixing this can you add the following for CONFIG_BOOKE: >>>>> >>>>> MSR_GS, MSR_UCLE, MSR_PMM, MSR_CM > > PMM is not just BookE, and is already present in the patch. > > RI is present on e500mc (despite being reserved in book3e), so might not > want to stick that inside #ifndef CONFIG_BOOKE. > >>> Not all bits are going to exist on all CPUs -- does 4xx use these bits >>> to mean something different? >> >> No, marked as reserved. However, given the patch shows up in human >> readable output, I don't think we want reserved bits being decoded and >> showing up inadvertently. > > Do the bits ever actually get set on 4xx (documented or otherwise), or > is this a theoretical concern? > > If 4xx must be excluded, use something like: > #if defined(CONFIG_BOOKE) && !defined(CONFIG_4xx)
I was going for something a bit simpler. Basically, CONFIG_BOOKE should be treated as a legacy Kconfig variable that has nothing to do with ISA 2.06 because it existed before that and is used by things that aren't compliant with 2.06 (both FSL and 4xx). If we use it for things that show up on these non-compliant CPUs, we'll have to continually add the !defined(WHATEVER) and that just gets ugly over time. > Do we also need to patch out things like MSR_VEC at runtime, in case it > randomly shows up on a pre-Altivec CPU? > >> Could introduce BOOK3E_32 to cover cases like this. > > Why _32? These bits apply to 64-bit as well. MSR_CM is only for 64-bit. Because CONFIG_BOOK3E depeonds on PPC_BOOK3E_64. So either that dependency needs to go so it's selectable elsewhere, or a similarly intended PPC_BOOK3E_32 needs to get created. Or something. > UCLE and PMM are present on pre-2.06 e500 cores as well. Sigh. Maybe there is no way to get un-ugly. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
