From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e35.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 040FAB7D2E for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 14:16:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o4S4AHGo010744 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 22:10:17 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o4S4GncH111390 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 22:16:49 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o4S4GmGK016720 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 22:16:49 -0600 Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:46:45 +0530 From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli To: Michael Neuling Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Emulate nop too Message-ID: <20100528041645.GB25946@in.ibm.com> References: <20100520124955.GA29903@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20100527141203.GA20770@in.ibm.com> <23979.1275013723@neuling.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <23979.1275013723@neuling.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , Srikar Dronamraju , "K.Prasad" Reply-To: ananth@in.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:28:43PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > > > In message <20100527141203.GA20770@in.ibm.com> you wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > While we are at it, can we also add nop to the list of emulated > > instructions? > > > > Ananth > > --- > > From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli > > > > Emulate ori 0,0,0 (nop). > > > > The long winded way is to do: > > > > case 24: > > rd = (instr >> 21) & 0x1f; > > if (rd != 0) > > break; > > rb = (instr >> 11) & 0x1f; > > if (rb != 0) > > break; > > Don't we just need rb == rd? Sure. But for this case, just checking against the opcode seems simple enough. Ananth