Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] powerpc/lib: unsafe register handling in wait_ticks

Wolfgang Denk wrote on 2013/01/24 20:27:26: > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > > In message 00673...@transmode.se> you wrote: > > > > This adds some extra churn to the code that my patch didn't do. > > On the other hand your patch makes the function look more > > like how gcc would have done so I am

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] powerpc/lib: unsafe register handling in wait_ticks

Dear Joakim Tjernlund, In message you wrote: > > This adds some extra churn to the code that my patch didn't do. > On the other hand your patch makes the function look more > like how gcc would have done so I am fine with that. > However, I am not sure r14 is a good fit, I cannot remember if t

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] powerpc/lib: unsafe register handling in wait_ticks

> > Hi, Hi Mats I would appreciate if you CC me directly on stuff I have been involved in. I don't read every mail on u-boot list(to many of them). It was just plain luck I saw this one. > > If watchdog is enabled, the arch/powerpc/lib/ticks.S::wait_ticks() function > calls the function spec

[U-Boot] [RFC] powerpc/lib: unsafe register handling in wait_ticks

Hi, If watchdog is enabled, the arch/powerpc/lib/ticks.S::wait_ticks() function calls the function specified by the WATCHDOG_RESET macro. The wait_ticks function depends on the registers r0, r6 and r7 being preserved however that is not guaranteed if the reset function is a C function. The follow