From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com (e6.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e6.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92DA0DDE00 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:37:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9UKdhQh032594 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:39:43 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m9UKal2T103614 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:36:47 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9UKadaB023300 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:36:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:36:45 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: 44x _tlbie() ME/CE/DE disabling unnecessary? Message-ID: <20081030163645.4385a67c@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1225397640.8004.171.camel@pasglop> References: <1225397640.8004.171.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, David, Gibson , Hollis Blanchard List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:14:00 +1100 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:04 -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > > > I don't think it's necessary at all to disable ME/CE/DE inside > > _tlbie() on 440, because the interrupt handlers for those types save > > and restore MMUCR (they're all the same code path; see > > mcheck_transfer_to_handler in entry_32.S). > > This was written before the saving of MMUCR was added I think. I was thinking that but git was being annoying. > > However, I think EE does need to be disabled, since the normal EE > > handler doesn't deal with MMUCR. So instead of all these MSR > > manipulations, I think a simple wrteei 0/1 pair should do the trick? > > Or maybe mfmsr/wrteei/wrtee, in case _tlbie() happens to be called > > with interrupts disabled already. > > Yes. Agreed. Hollis and I had this discussion on IRC and I pointed out that the patch originally just started with wrteei's. (And aren't you supposed to be on vacation...) josh