From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/booke64: Use common defines for AltiVec interrupts numbers
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:56:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1372726613.8183.104@snotra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8F554F03-E6B0-4140-8830-D4FD6249CEF9@suse.de> (from agraf@suse.de on Mon Jul 1 19:18:21 2013)
On 07/01/2013 07:18:21 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 01.07.2013, at 17:35, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>
> > On Book3E some SPE/FP/AltiVec interrupts share the same number. Use
> > common defines to indentify these numbers.
>
> So why didn't this happen from the beginning?
Ask Kumar.
> Why the change?
So we can remove this hack in kvm_asm.h:
/*
* TODO: Unify 32-bit and 64-bit kernel exception handlers to use same
defines
*/
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_UNAVAIL BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST \
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
It was added as a compilation fix, and it was less intrusive to
temporarily fix it this way.
I am curious why the above code wasn't removed at the end of this
patchset. :-)
-Scott
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/booke64: Use common defines for AltiVec interrupts numbers
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:56:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1372726613.8183.104@snotra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8F554F03-E6B0-4140-8830-D4FD6249CEF9@suse.de> (from agraf@suse.de on Mon Jul 1 19:18:21 2013)
On 07/01/2013 07:18:21 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>=20
> On 01.07.2013, at 17:35, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>=20
> > On Book3E some SPE/FP/AltiVec interrupts share the same number. Use
> > common defines to indentify these numbers.
>=20
> So why didn't this happen from the beginning?
Ask Kumar.
> Why the change?
So we can remove this hack in kvm_asm.h:
/*
* TODO: Unify 32-bit and 64-bit kernel exception handlers to use same =20
defines
*/
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_UNAVAIL BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA =20
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL =20
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST \
=20
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
It was added as a compilation fix, and it was less intrusive to =20
temporarily fix it this way.
I am curious why the above code wasn't removed at the end of this =20
patchset. :-)
-Scott=
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>,
<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
<kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/booke64: Use common defines for AltiVec interrupts numbers
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:56:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1372726613.8183.104@snotra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8F554F03-E6B0-4140-8830-D4FD6249CEF9@suse.de> (from agraf@suse.de on Mon Jul 1 19:18:21 2013)
On 07/01/2013 07:18:21 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 01.07.2013, at 17:35, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>
> > On Book3E some SPE/FP/AltiVec interrupts share the same number. Use
> > common defines to indentify these numbers.
>
> So why didn't this happen from the beginning?
Ask Kumar.
> Why the change?
So we can remove this hack in kvm_asm.h:
/*
* TODO: Unify 32-bit and 64-bit kernel exception handlers to use same
defines
*/
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_UNAVAIL BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_ALTIVEC_UNAVAIL
#define BOOKE_INTERRUPT_ALTIVEC_ASSIST \
BOOKE_INTERRUPT_SPE_FP_DATA_ALTIVEC_ASSIST
It was added as a compilation fix, and it was less intrusive to
temporarily fix it this way.
I am curious why the above code wasn't removed at the end of this
patchset. :-)
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-02 0:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-01 15:35 [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/booke64: Use common defines for AltiVec interrupts numbers Mihai Caraman
2013-07-01 15:35 ` Mihai Caraman
2013-07-01 15:35 ` Mihai Caraman
2013-07-01 15:35 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/fsl-booke: Use common defines for SPE/FP " Mihai Caraman
2013-07-01 15:35 ` Mihai Caraman
2013-07-01 15:35 ` Mihai Caraman
2013-07-02 0:18 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/booke64: Use common defines for AltiVec " Alexander Graf
2013-07-02 0:18 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-02 0:18 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-02 0:56 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2013-07-02 0:56 ` Scott Wood
2013-07-02 0:56 ` Scott Wood
2013-07-02 1:02 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-02 1:02 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-02 1:02 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-03 12:25 ` Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
2013-07-03 12:25 ` Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
2013-07-03 12:25 ` Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1372726613.8183.104@snotra \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mihai.caraman@freescale.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.