Q about ST0_UX

Q about ST0_UX

[Jason Gunthorpe]

Hi All,

I just noticed that in setup.c there is this little bit:

        s = read_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_STATUS);
        s &= ~(ST0_CU1|ST0_CU2|ST0_CU3|ST0_KX|ST0_SX|ST0_FR);
        s |= ST0_CU0;
        write_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_STATUS, s);

And it doesn't mask off ST0_UX - is this an oversight? With my RM7K the
kernel is called with ST0_UX set, and since it doesn't clear it the XTLB
handler is called - which faults things..

So, would this patch be appropriate in general:

--- setup.c     2001/12/02 11:34:38     1.96
+++ setup.c     2002/01/09 08:05:43
@@ -558,7 +558,7 @@
 
        /* Disable coprocessors and set FPU for 16 FPRs */
        s = read_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_STATUS);
-       s &= ~(ST0_CU1|ST0_CU2|ST0_CU3|ST0_KX|ST0_SX|ST0_FR);
+       s &= ~(ST0_CU1|ST0_CU2|ST0_CU3|ST0_UX|ST0_KX|ST0_SX|ST0_FR);
        s |= ST0_CU0;
        write_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_STATUS, s);

or is it better to make the xtlb handler work in the 32 bit case?

Thanks,
Jason

Re: Q about ST0_UX

[Ralf Baechle]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:08:47AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> I just noticed that in setup.c there is this little bit:
> 
>         s = read_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_STATUS);
>         s &= ~(ST0_CU1|ST0_CU2|ST0_CU3|ST0_KX|ST0_SX|ST0_FR);
>         s |= ST0_CU0;
>         write_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_STATUS, s);
> 
> And it doesn't mask off ST0_UX - is this an oversight? With my RM7K the
> kernel is called with ST0_UX set, and since it doesn't clear it the XTLB
> handler is called - which faults things..

On all firmware I've made the 32-bit kernel run on it is invoked with UX
cleared so I just didn't bother to clear it myself.

> So, would this patch be appropriate in general:
> 
> --- setup.c     2001/12/02 11:34:38     1.96
> +++ setup.c     2002/01/09 08:05:43
> @@ -558,7 +558,7 @@
>  
>         /* Disable coprocessors and set FPU for 16 FPRs */
>         s = read_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_STATUS);
> -       s &= ~(ST0_CU1|ST0_CU2|ST0_CU3|ST0_KX|ST0_SX|ST0_FR);
> +       s &= ~(ST0_CU1|ST0_CU2|ST0_CU3|ST0_UX|ST0_KX|ST0_SX|ST0_FR);
>         s |= ST0_CU0;
>         write_32bit_cp0_register(CP0_STATUS, s);
> 
> or is it better to make the xtlb handler work in the 32 bit case?

No, your patch is the right thing.  Enabeling UX would also permit the
use of 64-bit instructions and that wouldn't work on the 32-bit kernel.

  Ralf