[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v99,01/13] MIPS: microMIPS: Add support for microMIPS instruc

To: Kevin Cernekee <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v99,01/13] MIPS: microMIPS: Add support for microMIPS instructions.
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:24:38 +0100
Cc: "Steven J. Hill" <>,, "Kevin D. Kissell" <>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
References: <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:50:10PM -0800, Kevin Cernekee wrote:

> Some random thoughts/nitpicks on this section:
> The microMIPS patch nearly quadruples the number of instruction
> formats in the mips_instruction union, so it might be worth
> considering questions like:
> 1) Is this the optimal way to represent this information, or have we
> reached a point where it is worth adding more complex "infrastructure"
> that would support a more compact instruction definition format?
> 2) Is there a better way to handle the LE/BE bitfield problem, than to
> duplicate each of the 28+ structs?

Something based on #defines, for example.  Back in the dark ages I
figured bitfields would be nicer way to represent instruction formats.
Against the warning words of I think Kevin Kissel I went for the bitfields
and this would be a good opportunity to change direction.


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