From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: vfp: fix fpsid register subarchitecture field mask width
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:22:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130227112223.GA17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <512D634D.5010600@codeaurora.org>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 05:37:17PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/25/13 12:02, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > This can of worms is getting bigger. We have more problems with our
> > handling of the different VFP versions, specifically the handling of
> > the EX=0 DEX=0 case.
> >
> > VFP common subarch 3 defines the EX=0, DEX=0 encoding to mean one of
> > the following conditions have been met:
> >
> > 1. an unallocated VFP instruction was encountered.
> >
> > In other words, the VFP was the target of the co-processor instruction,
> > but the instruction is not a known VFP instruction encoding. This
> > should raise an undefined instruction exception.
> >
> > 2. an allocated VFP instruction was encountered, but not handled in
> > hardware.
> >
> > In other words, the instruction is a valid VFP instruction, but the
> > hardware has opted not to implement this instruction and wants
> > software to emulate it instead.
> >
> > (Note: this can also be raised as EX=0, DEX=1 - implementation
> > defined!)
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > So, if EX or DEX is set, _or_ IXE is set, we pass control to VFP_bounce.
> > This is problematical.
> >
> > (a) condition (2) above isn't correctly handled for common subarch v3 - it
> > is always treated as an undefined instruction, and will result in a
> > SIGILL being delivered.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Now, (a) is just bad behaviour - as we haven't had any reports of this
> > yet, I suspect that no one has implemented VFP hardware with this
> > behaviour yet.
>
> I believe we ran into this a while ago and fixed it for our chips. We
> never sent the patch upstream. Sorry.
>
> https://www.codeaurora.org/gitweb/quic/la/?p=kernel/msm.git;a=commitdiff;h=00a13be874f230159a6b7f8cc9d0ff23bc1b7d05
Yes, it looks like you did - because your short vector instructions are
"allocated VFP instruction"s and your hardware response is to raise an
exception with EX=0 DEX=0.
As you've found out, with the VFPv2 exception handling that we have, that
is interpreted as an undefined instruction, rather than an instruction
which needs fixing up.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-27 11:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-22 8:08 [PATCH] ARM: vfp: fix fpsid register subarchitecture field mask width Stephen Boyd
2013-02-22 18:27 ` Will Deacon
2013-02-22 23:46 ` Stephen Boyd
2013-02-25 11:18 ` Will Deacon
2013-02-26 3:01 ` Stephen Boyd
2013-02-26 17:54 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-02-27 17:44 ` Stephen Boyd
2013-02-25 17:25 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-02-25 20:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-02-27 1:37 ` Stephen Boyd
2013-02-27 11:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
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=20130227112223.GA17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).