[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140203181544.GK11329@bivouac.eciton.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 18:15:44 +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 04:57:18PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > mov[tw]: why?
> > Then we end up battling different available immediate fields in A32/T32
> > instruction sets and v5/v6/v7 architecture versions.
>
> I was making the assumption that UEFI was going to be v7 only... is this not
> true?
There is no such requirement in the specification.
It even mentions requirements for ARMv4 in one place :)
But I also don't understand why ldr= should be avoided.
This is not performance sensitive (called once on system boot), and
it's already executing with the caches off, so even if it ends up
being a literal load it does not pollute.
/
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