From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D67AB6F1A for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:00:32 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] powerpc: Use MSR_64BIT in places From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: <94DD022B-86D8-4751-BB65-7D46AC63ED9A@kernel.crashing.org> References: <431bd20fec52ff41fb47808954993ab6369eb45e.1302249358.git.michael@ellerman.id.au> <1302386681.28876.0.camel@pasglop> <94DD022B-86D8-4751-BB65-7D46AC63ED9A@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:00:14 +1000 Message-ID: <1302472814.28876.1.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 12:29 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Apr 9, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 04:24 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > >> On Apr 8, 2011, at 2:56 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >> > >>> Use the new MSR_64BIT in a few places. Some of these are already ifdef'ed > >>> for BOOKE vs BOOKS, but it's still clearer, MSR_SF does not immediately > >>> parse as "MSR bit for 64bit". > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman > >>> --- > >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/head_64.S | 2 +- > >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_64.c | 4 ++-- > >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c | 2 +- > >>> arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c | 14 +++++++------- > >>> 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> However MSR_ISF does ;) > > > > I'm not sure I parse that one :-) Any ways ISF is "interrupt SF" and has > > no equivalent in the MSR for BookE (it's elsewhere, EPCR no ?). > > I was just saying that if _SF doesn't parse as 64-bit mode, ISF doesn't parse as interrupt into 64-bit mode :) Ah right :-) But it's not used nearly as much and has no equivalent on BookE so I wouldn't bother. The deal here is really more about getting a single definition for both subarchs. Cheers, Ben.