[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SMTC support status in latest git head.

To: Anoop P A <>
Subject: Re: SMTC support status in latest git head.
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:33:18 -0800
Cc: STUART VENTERS <>, "Anoop P.A." <>,
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=MBSdT+E6CMUU0qZxxCeafgqxIJQUfrgZ4ZHJ+sI1pA1OE4voVmBQl3NpIWlHGPnsYG0DD11Luv+uMcqn8TNqCSULIc7m/WZrIEshnFA4uXBd0xUWJEbh1CW7ovIAKLKU;
In-reply-to: <1294163657.27661.386.camel@paanoop1-desktop>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <1293470392.27661.202.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <1293524389.27661.210.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1293798476.27661.279.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294067561.27661.293.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294082426.27661.330.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294146165.27661.361.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <1294151822.27661.375.camel@paanoop1-desktop> <> <1294163657.27661.386.camel@paanoop1-desktop>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7
On 01/04/11 09:54, Anoop P A wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 09:21 -0800, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
I'm trying to figure out a reason why your change below should help, and
offhand, modulo tool bugs, I don't see it.  I'm assuming that your diff
below is a diff relative to the pre-patch stackframe.h.   I wouldn't
Yes patch created against stock code .

bless it as an alternative because it moves code and comments
unnecessarily - all you should really have to do is to move the

   190                 mfc0    v1, CP0_STATUS
   191                 LONG_S  $2, PT_R2(sp)

to be just after the #endif /* CONFIG_MIPS_MT_SMTC */ at around line 201.
Actually I just moved code under CONFIG_MIPS_MT_SMTC to previous block
of code ( which store $0 ) . git diff did the rest on behalf of me :)

If moving the save of zero to PT_R0(sp) actually makes a difference,
it's evidence that you've got problems in your toolchain (or, heaven
forbid, your pipeline)!
In previous version of patch usage of V0 was creating issue. I have
verified this with previous version of code ( working code before
David's instruction rearrangement patch.) .

Argh. It's not very clearly commented, but it looks as if the system call trap handler has an implicit assumption that v0 has never been changed by SAVE_SOME, TRACE_IRQS_ON_RELOAD, or STI. So yeah, moving the code around to fix the v1 conflict ends up being better than using v0 - otherwise, we'd need to add a LONG_L v0, PT_R2(sp) somewhere after the LONG_S v0, PT_TCSTATUS(sp) of the original patch.


            Kevin K.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>