From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3A8C5C9E.4C02D1AC@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:47:58 -0800 From: Frank Rowand Reply-To: frowand@mvista.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Troy Benjegerdes Cc: frowand@mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: calling giveup_altivec on machine with no altivec!? References: <20010215160658.P26702@altus.drgw.net> <3A8C5613.662D35DA@mvista.com> <20010215163356.Q26702@altus.drgw.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > Is it possible that the MSR had the MSR_VEC bit set at some point? One > > IBM processor user's manual says "the reserved fields should be written > > as 0 and read as __undefined__. This is, when writing to a register with > > a reserved field, write a 0 to the reserved field. When reading from a > > register with a reserved field, ignore that bit." > In either case, if that's what the IBM manuals say, then the code is > incorrect and should probably be re-done to check that it's actually > running on a kernel with an altivec unit. Any suggestions on the best way > to fix it? Assuming a CONFIG_ALTIVEC flag (or equivalent) existed, then in processor.h: #ifdef CONFIG_ALTIVEC #define MSR_VEC (1<<25) #else #define MSR_VEC (0) #endif -Frank -- Frank Rowand MontaVista Software, Inc ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/