linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "ralf@linux-mips.org" <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v99,01/13] MIPS: microMIPS: Add support for microMIPS instructions.
From: "Hill, Steven" <sjhill@mips.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 05:15:56 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@paralogos.com>
In-reply-to: <20121207152438.GC25923@linux-mips.org>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
References: <1354856737-28678-1-git-send-email-sjhill@mips.com> <1354856737-28678-2-git-send-email-sjhill@mips.com> <CAJiQ=7BKXMbRZqwxPnFqFS3nUuGr819zQbuhbAspOZvpCYpnFw@mail.gmail.com>,<20121207152438.GC25923@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
Thread-index: AQHN1DiHCvL61O110EKCn4uZDGaFTZgNfKEAgAB++gCAC2ENog==
Thread-topic: [PATCH v99,01/13] MIPS: microMIPS: Add support for microMIPS instructions.
>> 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.
>
Oh sure, why not. I mean I've only rewritten this patch at least 10 times. 
What's one more time? :) If one or all of you would expound on what your design 
ideas are, that would be great. Again, not to sound like a scratched CD, but I 
am still shooting for this code to get into 3.9, so please reply soon. Thanks.

-Steve

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