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

[Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>]

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.

  Ralf