pismo upgraded to 750fx not detected correctly
Gabriel Paubert
paubert at iram.es
Tue Jun 24 18:18:29 EST 2003
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 01:16:41PM -0400, Chris Studholme wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > > diff -c -r linux-2.4.21-ac1.orig/arch/ppc/kernel/misc.S linux-2.4.21-ac1/arch/ppc/kernel/misc.S
> > > *** linux-2.4.21-ac1.orig/arch/ppc/kernel/misc.S Fri Jun 13 10:51:31 2003
> > > --- linux-2.4.21-ac1/arch/ppc/kernel/misc.S Sun Jun 22 21:25:32 2003
> > > ***************
> > > *** 113,118 ****
> > > --- 113,139 ----
> > > addis r8,r3,cpu_specs at ha
> > > addi r8,r8,cpu_specs at l
> > > mfpvr r7
> > > +
> > > + /* check for 750fx strapped on as 750 */
> > > + srwi r6,r7,16
> > > + cmpli 0,r6,8
> > > + bne 1f
> > > + mfspr r5,0x3F1
> > > + srwi. r6,r5,17
> > > + bso 2f
> >
> > Are you sure you want to test the summary overflow bit
> > in this branch ? This bit is not related to the result
> > of the preceding srwi. instruction, so this looks
> > strange to say the least.
>
> What I was trying to do is test the last bit shifted out by the srwi., but
> I still don't know how to do that, so how about this instead:
>
> mfspr r5,0x3F1
> andis. r6,r5,0x0001
> bne 2f
This looks much better, and is the standard way
of testing a bit on PPC.
> > > slwi r4,r4,2
> > > sub r8,r8,r3
> > > stwx r8,r4,r6
> > > +
> > > + addis r6,r3,real_pvr at ha
> > > + addi r6,r6,real_pvr at l
> > > + stwx r7,0,r6
> >
> > A bit convoluted no? r3 is supposed to be zero, so
Argh, disregard this. I've been lately working too much with
an assembler in which the result is the last operand and
believed that sub r8,r8,r3 was a convoluted way of clearung r3.
> > the standard way of performing this is:
> > lis r6,real_pvr at ha
> > stw r7,real_pvr at l(r6)
>
> I believe when this method is called, there is some concern over where
> data is. The method comments are:
>
> /*
> * identify_cpu,
> * called with r3 = data offset and r4 = CPU number
> * doesn't change r3
> */
>
> and all of the other references to global data involve r3, like:
>
> addis r8,r3,cpu_specs at ha
> addi r8,r8,cpu_specs at l
>
> and
>
> addis r6,r3,cur_cpu_spec at ha
> addi r6,r6,cur_cpu_spec at l
> slwi r4,r4,2
> sub r8,r8,r3
> stwx r8,r4,r6
>
> so I figured I should do the same. But perhaps I could still simplify my
> code with:
>
> addis r6,r3,real_pvr at ha
> stwx r7,real_pvr at l(r6)
Correct, provided the last instruction is stw instead of stwx, and
unless I miss again something.
Gabriel
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list