On 2/15/24 7:49 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Peter Bergner writes:
>> On 2/15/24 2:16 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024, at 23:34, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>>> Arnd, we seem to have consensus on the patch below. Is this something
>>>
On 2/15/24 2:16 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024, at 23:34, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> The powerpc toolchain keeps a copy of the HWCAP bit masks in our TCB for fast
>> access by the __builtin_cpu_supports built-in function. The TCB space for
>> the HWCAP entries -
d-off-by: Peter Bergner
Acked-by: Adhemerval Zanella (glibc)
Acked-by: Nicholas Piggin (powerpc)
Acked-by: Szabolcs Nagy (arm)
---
include/uapi/linux/auxvec.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/auxvec.h b/include/uapi/linux/auxvec.h
index 6991c4b
ks.
Peter
On 9/26/23 5:02 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The powerpc toolchain keeps a copy of the HWCAP bit masks in our TCB for fast
> access by our __builtin_cpu_supports built-in function. The TCB space for
> the HWCAP entries - which are created in pairs - is an ABI extension, so
>
On 10/3/23 9:08 AM, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
> What it is not clear to me is what kind of ABI boundary you are trying to
> preemptively add support here. The TCB ABI for __builtin_cpu_supports is
> userland only, so if your intention is just to allow gcc to work on older
> glibcs, it should
Hi Adhemerval, sorry for the delay in replying, I was a little under the
weather last week.
On 9/27/23 11:03 AM, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
> On 26/09/23 19:02, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> The powerpc toolchain keeps a copy of the HWCAP bit masks in our TCB for fast
>>
looking for unused AT_*
values and 29 and 30 did not seem to be used, so they are what I went
with. If anyone sees a problem with using those specific values, I'm
amenable to using other values, just let me know what would be better.
Peter
Signed-off-by: Peter Bergner
---
include/uapi/linux/aux
On 8/31/22 5:45 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:10:02AM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 30/08/2022 à 11:01, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>>> On Tue Aug 30, 2022 at 3:24 PM AEST, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> This is still slightly concerning to me. Is there any guarante
On 5/20/22 12:15 AM, Nicholas Piggin via Gcc wrote:
> +PPC_FEATURE_HAS_ALTIVEC
> +Vector (aka Altivec, VSX) facility is available.
Slight typo. s/VSX/VMX/
Peter
On 11/23/16 11:52 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
On 24/11/16 16:14, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 24/11/16 13:05, Balbir Singh wrote:
9. The license for these files is now GPL v3 or later
As much as I love the GPLv3, isn't this an instant NAK?
Thats why I called it out, my bad though I should have
On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 17:00 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 12:37:35AM +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> > >> -0: tlbie r4; \
> > >> +0: tlbie r4, 0; \
> > >
> > > This isn't correct. With POWER7 and later (wh
On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 22:03 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> arch/powerpc/kernel/swsusp_asm64.S: Assembler messages:
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/swsusp_asm64.S:188: Error: missing operand
>> scripts/Makefile.build:294: recipe for target
>> 'arch/powerpc/kernel/swsusp_asm64.o' failed
>> make[1]: *** [arch/
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 10:08 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:50:27PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Nope, you don't get a SIGILL when executing 64-bit instructions in
> > 32-bit mode, so it'll happily just execute the instruction, doing
> &
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 09:38 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 08:11 +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > I used some 64 bit instructions when adding the 32 bit getcpu VDSO
> > function. Fix it.
>
> Ouch. The symptom is a SIGILL I presume?
Nope, you don't get a SIGILL when execut
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 16:19 -0600, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> I agree, but that means it is impossible for the same .S file can be compiled
> but -mcpu=e500mc and -mcpu=powerpc? So either these files have to be Book3S
> versus Book3E --or-- we use a CPP macro to get them right.
> FWIW, I prefer the lat
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 07:28 -0600, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Jimi, are you using an "old" binutils from before my patch that
> > changed the operand order for these types of instructions?
> >
> >http
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 22:33 +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> Hi Jimi,
>
> > I know this is a little late, but shouldn't these power7 specific
> > thingies be in "obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3S_64)". The reason I ask is
> > that my compiler pukes on "dcbtst" and as I deal with that I wanted
> > to point th
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 22:44 +0530, Santosh Kumar wrote:
> I had a problem configuring the GCC for 476 in little endian mode,
What type of problem? I assume the binutils you are building
against has 476 support too, correct? You'll need that.
> So is this PTE fault related to the compiler optio
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 08:32 +0530, Santosh Kumar wrote:
> I am using the same compiler as 476 & 440 instruction is almost the same.
Well the 476 implements ISA 2.05, which I think has added a fair amount
over the 440. Not to mention the 476 core that has been released has
a FP unit. I'll note th
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 21:34 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
> > OK, but then you don't mix some libs/apps with soft and other
> > apps/libs with hard FP?
>
> No, we never tried that. Sounds scary to me.
And dangerous. Hard-float and soft-float are ABI incompatible, so you
ca
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 12:54 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > How do you want to handle the current binutils code that implements tlbilx
> > and its extended mnemonics? Should they be changed to use secondary opcode
> > 18 inst
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 15:36 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> The tlbilx opcode was not matching the Power ISA 2.06 arch spec.
> The old opcode was an early suggested opcode that changed during the
> 2.06 architecture process.
[snip]
> #define PPC_INST_STSWI 0x7c0005aa
> #define PP
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:14:04 +0100 (CET) Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
>
> > > > let us know if that works :-)
> > >
> > > didn't. Oh well.
> >
> > Does allnoconfig work if you force the compiler to be 32-bit, like
> >
> > make CC="p
23 matches
Mail list logo
