> > On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 17:42 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > On 06/01/2012 05:30 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > BTW. My point of view is that this whole business about MSR:DE is a HW > > > design bug. There should be -no- (absolutely 0) interaction between the > > > SW state and the HW debugger for normal operations unless the user of > > > the debugger explicitly wants to change some state. > > > > I agree entirely, and e500mc at least has less of this than e500v2 (not > > sure if it still needs MSR[DE], but supposedly it doesn't have the > > requirement for there to be a valid instruction at the debug vector, > > which is lots of fun when booting). But this isn't exactly something > > Freescale is going to replace existing chips over. > > > > Getting all the way to zero interaction would require a completely > > separate debug facility so software can debug at the same time. I'd be > > all for that (and let's throw in a third, for the hypervisor), but I'm > > not the one that needs to be convinced. > > You can find a good compromise. If you have some kind of SPR letting you > know now many DACs and IACs are available, you could essentially > "reserve" some for HW debug with the probe. Not as good as a fully > separate facility but still better than stepping on each other toes. > > Things like DBCR should probably still be separated. There's no excuse > for the MSR:DE bullshit tho :-)
hmm, where does this go w.r.t the patch? Got the feeling that the best thing is to just turn MSR:DE on and be done with it? Jocke _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
