| To: | ralf@linux-mips.org |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] TX49 MFC0 bug workaround |
| From: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Date: | Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:04:28 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | macro@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20060202165656.GC17352@linux-mips.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20060203.013401.41198517.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0602021636380.11727@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <20060202165656.GC17352@linux-mips.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:56:56 +0000, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
>>>>> said:
>> Hmm, wouldn't that "nop" alternative be simpler?
ralf> Simpler maybe - but this variant has zero runtime overhead.
Yes. I do not want do add extra cycles.
However, It can be more readable since we can safely mask bit[5:1] (as
local_irq_enable() does). Like this:
__asm__ (
" .macro local_irq_disable\n"
" .set push \n"
" .set noat \n"
#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_MIPSR2
" di \n"
#else
" mfc0 $1,$12 \n"
" ori $1,0x1f \n"
" xori $1,0x1f \n"
" .set noreorder \n"
" mtc0 $1,$12 \n"
#endif
" irq_disable_hazard \n"
" .set pop \n"
" .endm \n");
Is this preferred? We can get rid of all TX49XX_MFC0_WAR on this way.
---
Atsushi Nemoto
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] TX49 MFC0 bug workaround, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Optimize swab operations, Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] TX49 MFC0 bug workaround, Ralf Baechle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] TX49 MFC0 bug workaround, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |