|To:||"Kevin D. Kissell" <email@example.com>, Ralf Baechle <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] MIPS: SMTC: Correct saving of CP0_STATUS|
|From:||David Daney <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:14:26 -0700|
|Cc:||"Edgar E. Iglesias" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com|
|References:||<20110829232029.GA15763@zapo> <4E5C2490.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4E5C26D4.email@example.com>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:220.127.116.11) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10|
On 08/29/2011 04:55 PM, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
I submitted that exact patch (David's more minimal version) in December 2010 (and I did test it). Did it not take?
Evidently not. Perhaps Ralf will see fit to commit it this time.
See the thread "SMTC support status in latest git head". The patch went out on December 24 (why I was spending my Christmas Eve fixing MIPS Linux is another question... :op )
... one which I will not attempt to address. David Daney.
Kevin K. On 08/29/11 16:45, David Daney wrote:On 08/29/2011 04:20 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:Hi, Commit 362e696428590f7d0a5d0971a2d04b0372a761b8 reorders a bunch of insns to improve the flow of the pipeline but for MT_SMTC kernels, AFAICT, the saving of CP0_STATUS seems wrong.Indeed.Am I missing something?It does look like in the MIPS_MT_SMTC case we are clobbering the value in v1.If not here is a patch, tested with qemu.How about the attached completely untested one instead? David Daney
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH] MIPS: SMTC: Correct saving of CP0_STATUS, Kevin D. Kissell|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH] MIPS: SMTC: Correct saving of CP0_STATUS, Kevin D. Kissell|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] MIPS: SMTC: Correct saving of CP0_STATUS, Kevin D. Kissell|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] MIPS: SMTC: Correct saving of CP0_STATUS, Kevin D. Kissell|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|