Re: [PATCH 1/8] MIPS: Replace assembly isa level directives with macros

Thomas Bogendoerfer
2023-04-21T07:44:25Z

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 08:29:03PM +0100, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
> Yes, GAS and LLVM sometimes have different opinions on what a instruction
> feature should belong to. Personally I think there is no right or wrong in most case.
>
> So generally when we try to use some inline assembly features that toolchain
> may consider belongs to higher ISA level we will use `.set mips64r2` directives.
>
> Having this patch just unified the defined arch across the tree, so it happens to fix
> some cases where `.set` was given a improper option.

I'd prefer, if we don't magically fix something by doing this massive
replacement. So first bug fixing then cleanup.

And what I don't like is the name of the #defines (I know it's not your
choice, ), they don't tell me anything and it's still not clear which
one should be used in which case.

I see one use case, which is enabling 64bit instruction inside a 32bit
kernel.

What are the others ?

Do we really need all of them ? For example the change in
arch/mips/mm/cex-oct.S, this is for a octeon kernel, which only supports
and works with 64bit kernels...

Thomas.

--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]