[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131009012740.GB23780@concordia>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:27:41 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9][v5] powerpc: implement is_instr_load_store().
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 12:03:19PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 12:31 -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> > Michael Ellerman [michael@...erman.id.au] wrote:
> > | bool is_load_store(int ext_opcode)
> > | {
> > | upper = ext_opcode >> 5;
> > | lower = ext_opcode & 0x1f;
> > |
> > | /* Short circuit as many misses as we can */
> > | if (lower < 3 || lower > 23)
> > | return false;
> >
> > I see some loads/stores like these which are not covered by
> > the above check. Is it ok to ignore them ?
> >
> > lower == 29: ldepx, stdepx, eviddepx, evstddepx
> >
> > lower == 31: lwepx, lbepx, lfdepx, stfdepx,
>
> Those are the external process ID instructions, which I've never heard
> of anyone using, I think we can ignore them.
>
> > Looking through the opcode maps, I also see these for primary
> > op code 4:
> >
> > evldd, evlddx, evldwx, evldw, evldh, evldhx.
> >
> > Should we include those also ?
>
> Yes I think so. I didn't check any of the other opcodes for you.
Paul points out these are for the SPE extension, which we also don't
care about. So ignore those as well.
cheers
--
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