From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e39.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61E8B6F93 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:30:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p527GNDx031037 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 01:16:23 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p527UJcJ325998 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 01:30:20 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p521UI1x032330 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:30:19 -0600 Message-ID: <4DE73C04.5050208@in.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:00:12 +0530 From: Suzuki Poulose MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Kexec support for PPC440x References: <4DE345B0.8020505@in.ibm.com> <4DE50617.7090509@linutronix.de> <1306999551.29297.57.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1306999551.29297.57.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cc: linux ppc dev , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , lkml List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/02/11 12:55, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 17:15 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> Suzuki Poulose wrote: >>> Index: powerpc/arch/powerpc/kernel/44x_kexec_mapping.S >>> =================================================================== >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ powerpc/arch/powerpc/kernel/44x_kexec_mapping.S >> .... >> >>> + * >>> + */ >>> + bl nxtins /* Find our address */ >>> +nxtins: mflr r5 /* Make it accessible */ >> >> Please don't mix labels and instructions. > > With proper indent it's fine as long as he uses numerical relative > labels which should be the case here. For example, the above, it should > look like: > > bl 1f > 1: mflr r5 > >>> + tlbsx r23,0,r5 /* Find entry we are in */ >> >> using tabs instead of spaces would make it look nice. Please also separate >> the arguments of the instruction i.e. >> tlbsx r23, 0, r5 > > That's arguable. If you look at arch/powerpc, we tend not to separate > the arguments ;-) > > Actually I used to, others didn't and I changed my own style. > >>> Index: powerpc/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S >>> =================================================================== >>> --- powerpc.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S >>> +++ powerpc/arch/powerpc/kernel/misc_32.S >>> @@ -736,6 +736,28 @@ relocate_new_kernel: >>> mr r5, r31 >>> >>> li r0, 0 >>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_44x)&& !defined(CONFIG_47x) >>> + >>> + mr r29, r3 >>> + mr r30, r4 >>> + mr r31, r5 >>> + >>> +#include "44x_kexec_mapping.S" >> >> The way you setup the 1:1 mapping should be close to what you are doing on >> kernel entry. Isn't it possible to include the file here and in the entry >> code? > > It should just not be #included, what about branching out instead ? This code, i.e, relocate_new_kernel is copied into the control buffer, which will get the first chance to execute before the purgatory. So we may not be able to branch to the code, since we are executing this from a different address and we would invalidate the mapping for the code except the control buffer. Thanks Suzuki