[Edson.Seabra@cyclades.com: Re: BDI and 85xx]

[Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>]

FYI - how does it look now?


----- Forwarded message from Edson Seabra <Edson.Seabra@cyclades.com> -----

From: Edson Seabra <Edson.Seabra@cyclades.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:11:19 -0800
To: "marcelo.tosatti" <Marcelo.Tosatti@cyclades.com>
Subject: Re: BDI and 85xx


Hi, Marcelo.

I re-make the changes following the Dan suggestion.

Can you check if he will accept them this time ?

Thanks,
-Edson.




(See attached file: 8xx_gdb.diff)

Dan Malek <dan@embeddededge.com> wrote on 11/07/2005 09:17:46 AM:

>
> On Nov 7, 2005, at 6:24 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > Edson had to patch this in to get BDI to work on 85xx with 2.6.14.
>
> How about we just change MSR_KERNEL and MSR_USER
> in the include file #define instead of all of this run-time code?
> Or, change the code so it preserves DE in general, so we don't
> need a special kernel configuration just for the BDI?
>
> The original reason I did the BDI_SWITCH was due to the
> overhead of tracking user PTE switches in the context switch
> code.  I don't like the way this has been overloaded to mean
> "BDI general operation."  We should be able to attach a BDI2000
> to any kernel configuration and always get kernel debugging
> capability.  The BDI_SWITCH was to enable the extra feature
> (with some overhead) of debugging into user applications,
> it never should have affected any kernel debug operation.
>
> It's unfortunate that Book-E is such a PITA for debuggers,
> but let's please find a better way of using these features.
> Separate kernel configurations to enable hardware
> debugging isn't acceptable.
>
> Thanks.
>
>    -- Dan
>


----- End forwarded message -----