[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1203091112050.24151@xanadu.home>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:20:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>
cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@....com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-WIP 01/13] xen/arm: use r12 to pass the hypercall number
to the hypervisor
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Dave Martin wrote:
> Register variables feel like a red herring though. We're only using
> those because we can't do the needful thing and actually desscribe
> these constraints in the asm constraints (which would seem to be the
> right place). We specifically don't care where those values are
> except at the boundaries of the asm block itself.
Absolutely.
> Is there a reason why ARM gcc doesn't provide the ability to specify
> such exact-register constraints, or is this more for historical
> reasons? It is possible?
I don't know how much things have changed since I last looked at the gcc
code, but implementing this seemed to be pretty trivial at the time.
The problem would be to determine a good letter scheme to map to actual
registers.
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists