From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dave.martin@linaro.org (Dave Martin) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:43:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: make head.S register assignments more convenient In-Reply-To: References: <20111206111105.GA2270@linaro.org> <20111206112912.GR14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20111206132331.GA13769@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20111207114304.GB2910@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 02:01:23PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Dave Martin wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:29:12AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:11:05AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > Is it also worth changing the other proc-*.S setup rountines to be PCS > > > > compliant too? This would clean up the calling convention further, and > > > > help avoid future sutprises. > > > > > > They _aren't_ PCS functions in any case. They don't have a stack > > > available to them. So, having them as non-PCS functions reinforces > > > the fact that they _are_ special. > > > > Fair point. > > > > Maybe a brief note in the commit message explaining why only certain > > proc-*.S files are touched would be belpful. But it's not vital. > > They are touched only because they were using registers where I moved > the previous r1 and r2 values to. So I moved their usage of mainly > r5-r6 to the normally callee clobbered registers. I don't think there > is further changes that would be as badly needed as those I did. Fair enough ---Dave