[PATCH v5 1/5] powerpc/sstep: Emulate prefixed instructions only when CPU_FTR_ARCH_31 is set
Ravi Bangoria
ravi.bangoria at linux.ibm.com
Wed Oct 14 18:34:19 AEDT 2020
Hi Daniel,
On 10/12/20 7:14 PM, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To review this, I looked through the supported instructions to see if
> there were any that I thought might have been missed.
>
> I didn't find any other v3.1 ones, although I don't have a v3.1 ISA to
> hand so I was basically looking for instructions I didn't recognise.
>
> I did, however, find a number of instructions that are new in ISA 3.0
> that aren't guarded:
>
> - addpcis
> - lxvl/stxvl
> - lxvll/stxvll
> - lxvwsx
> - stxvx
> - lxsipzx
> - lxvh8x
> - lxsihzx
> - lxvb16x/stxvb16x
> - stxsibx
> - stxsihx
> - lxvb16x
> - lxsd/stxsd
> - lxssp/stxssp
> - lxv/stxv
>
> Also, I don't know how bothered we are about P7, but if I'm reading the
> ISA correctly, lqarx/stqcx. are not supported before ISA 2.07. Likewise
> a number of the vector instructions like lxsiwzx and lxsiwax (and the
> companion stores).
>
> I realise it's not really the point of this particular patch, so I don't
> think this should block acceptance. What I would like to know - and
> maybe this is something where we need mpe to weigh in - is whether we
> need consistent guards for 2.07 and 3.0. We have some 3.0 guards already
> but clearly not everywhere.
Yes, those needs to be handled properly. Otherwise they can be harmful
when emulated on a non-supporting platform. Will work on it when I get
some time. Thanks for reporting it.
>
> With all that said - the patch does what it says it does, and looks good
> to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Axtens <dja at axtens.net>
Thanks!
Ravi
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list