PPC_FPU, ALTIVEC: enable_kernel_fp, put_vr, get_vr
Segher Boessenkool
segher at kernel.crashing.org
Mon Apr 19 03:46:48 AEST 2021
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:24:29PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 17/04/2021 à 22:17, Randy Dunlap a écrit :
> >Should the code + Kconfigs/Makefiles handle that kind of
> >kernel config or should ALTIVEC always mean PPC_FPU as well?
>
> As far as I understand, Altivec is completely independant of FPU in Theory.
And, as far as the hardware is concerned, in practice as well.
> So it should be possible to use Altivec without using FPU.
Yup.
> However, until recently, it was not possible to de-activate FPU support on
> book3s/32. I made it possible in order to reduce unneccessary processing on
> processors like the 832x that has no FPU.
The processor has to implement FP to be compliant to any version of
PowerPC, as far as I know? So that is all done by emulation, including
all the registers? Wow painful.
> As far as I can see in cputable.h/.c, 832x is the only book3s/32 without
> FPU, and it doesn't have ALTIVEC either.
602 doesn't have double-precision hardware, also no 64-bit FP registers.
But that CPU was never any widely used :-)
> So we can in the future ensure that Altivec can be used without FPU
> support, but for the time being I think it is OK to force selection of FPU
> when selecting ALTIVEC in order to avoid build failures.
It is useful to allow MSR[VEC,FP]=1,0 but yeah there are no CPUs that
have VMX (aka AltiVec) but that do not have FP. I don't see how making
that artificial dependency buys anything, but maybe it does?
> >I have patches to fix the build errors with the config as
> >reported but I don't know if that's the right thing to do...
Neither do we, we cannot see those patches :-)
Segher
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list