Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753260AbaBCQpg (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:45:36 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180]:47188 "EHLO mail-we0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753106AbaBCQpb (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:45:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:46:36 +0000 From: Leif Lindholm To: Will Deacon Cc: "msalter@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "grant.likely@secretlab.ca" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "patches@linaro.org" , "roy.franz@linaro.org" , "matt.fleming@intel.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] arm: add new asm macro update_sctlr Message-ID: <20140203164636.GJ11329@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1389445524-30623-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <1389445524-30623-3-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20140122112055.GF1621@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20140129182805.GF11329@bivouac.eciton.net> <1391029124.2488.50.camel@deneb.redhat.com> <20140130131247.GG11329@bivouac.eciton.net> <20140203103415.GA12187@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20140203155542.GI11329@bivouac.eciton.net> <20140203160051.GG14112@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140203160051.GG14112@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:00:51PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > With the two call sites in uefi_phys.S as: > > > > > > > > ldr r5, =(CR_M) > > > > update_sctlr r12, , r5 > > > > and > > > > ldr r4, =(CR_I | CR_C | CR_M) > > > > update_sctlr r12, r4 > > > > > > These ldr= could be movs, right? > > > > The first one could. > > The second one could be movw on armv7+. > > > > > If so, I definitely prefer this to putting an ldr = into the macro itself > > > (option 2). > > > > And your preference between 1) and 2) is? > > (1), using bic and mov[tw] where possible. (1): ok, thanks. bic: sure, that was an oversight. mov[tw]: why? Then we end up battling different available immediate fields in A32/T32 instruction sets and v5/v6/v7 architecture versions. / Leif -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/