[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140203164636.GJ11329@bivouac.eciton.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:46:36 +0000
From: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: "msalter@...hat.com" <msalter@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
"roy.franz@...aro.org" <roy.franz@...aro.org>,
"matt.fleming@...el.com" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] arm: add new asm macro update_sctlr
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:00:51PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > With the two call sites in uefi_phys.S as:
> > > >
> > > > ldr r5, =(CR_M)
> > > > update_sctlr r12, , r5
> > > > and
> > > > ldr r4, =(CR_I | CR_C | CR_M)
> > > > update_sctlr r12, r4
> > >
> > > These ldr= could be movs, right?
> >
> > The first one could.
> > The second one could be movw on armv7+.
> >
> > > If so, I definitely prefer this to putting an ldr = into the macro itself
> > > (option 2).
> >
> > And your preference between 1) and 2) is?
>
> (1), using bic and mov[tw] where possible.
(1): ok, thanks.
bic: sure, that was an oversight.
mov[tw]: why?
Then we end up battling different available immediate fields in A32/T32
instruction sets and v5/v6/v7 architecture versions.
/
Leif
--
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