[RFC] [PATCH] powerpc: Add MSR_DE to MSR_KERNEL

Scott Wood scottwood at freescale.com
Fri Jun 1 07:43:34 EST 2012

On 05/31/2012 04:38 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote on 2012/05/31 19:47:53:
>> On 05/31/2012 04:56 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>> Abatron Support <support at abatron.ch> wrote on 2012/05/31 11:30:57:
>>>>> Abatron Support <support at abatron.ch> wrote on 2012/05/30 14:08:26:
>>>>>>>> I have tested this briefly with BDI2000 on P2010(e500) and
>>>>>>>> it works for me. I don't know if there are any bad side effects,
>>>>>>>> therfore
>>>>>>>> this RFC.
>>>>>>> We used to have MSR_DE surrounded by CONFIG_something
>>>>>>> to ensure it wasn't set under normal operation.  IIRC, if MSR_DE
>>>>>>> is set, you will have problems with software debuggers that
>>>>>>> utilize the the debugging registers in the chip itself.  You only want
>>>>>>> to force this to be set when using the BDI, not at other times.
>>>>>> This MSR_DE is also of interest and used for software debuggers that
>>>>>> make use of the debug registers. Only if MSR_DE is set then debug
>>>>>> interrupts are generated. If a debug event leads to a debug interrupt
>>>>>> handled by a software debugger or if it leads to a debug halt handled
>>>>>> by a JTAG tool is selected with DBCR0_EDM / DBCR0_IDM.
>>>>>> The "e500 Core Family Reference Manual" chapter "Chapter 8
>>>>>> Debug Support" explains in detail the effect of MSR_DE.
>>>>> So what is the verdict on this? I don't buy into Dan argument without some
>>>>> hard data.
>>>> What I tried to mention is that handling the MSR_DE correct is not only
>>>> an emulator (JTAG debugger) requirement. Also a software debugger may
>>>> depend on a correct handled MSR_DE bit.
>>> Yes, that made sense to me too. How would SW debuggers work if the kernel keeps
>>> turning off MSR_DE first chance it gets?
>> The kernel selectively enables MSR_DE when it wants to debug.  I'm not
>> sure if anything will be bothered by leaving it on all the time.  This
>> is something we need for virtualization as well, so a hypervisor can
>> debug the guest.
> hmm, I read that as you as in favour of the patch?

I'd want some confirmation that it doesn't break anything, and that
there aren't any other places that need MSR_DE that this doesn't cover,
but in general yes.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list