From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:01:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [PATCH] ARM: make head.S register assignments more convenient In-Reply-To: <20111206132331.GA13769@linaro.org> References: <20111206111105.GA2270@linaro.org> <20111206112912.GR14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20111206132331.GA13769@linaro.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. Nicolas