Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:8c0a:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id go10csp5723303pxb; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:10:12 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJypytAjZbPsDqWAqBNF4HU2KEdd2gOUVAwdEKi58ntg9OMl985oMn9x65BZVKexJ8Yqucp8 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1e4:: with SMTP id i4mr14947741edy.227.1613484612266; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:10:12 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1613484612; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Wb0vJmBA5sX0JKKl032r8rA/NAfUQE+/rx+zy0gEVp8dvhwEkgxn0PAy+Bj3QXEYSM TuGdHDKJAnwEi+UBgUmP2k9809sFEsHj81GXkswRGOoLwMRIfOwhwj7loy6FTwWe1qkh hCebiJ5XLDWbkhtYrDiG8TYjMkTYHQhJ0bofRwaUKunNyBa2rssCYihevjX8JXAqMe6C qT2gLKiYhUZz2FFFe+p6t9Ti2ybVjpvT/DQEf0yr2LHCJzkG0xrFvX/vMfuiFmv34xq4 6V/5ShBRG9ziOecrEX2PSXFHlviiPbiAlFovUFShiVuvCgmzRCk3euRbEsYxnW7GDc8B dSEw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=iV6/KrKJUtuhLVku5hi8qFNzDlF36L/3EoaAPF1vFp8=; b=vblr5Liq6K6i9b/R7TBJSxJLcy97MvLFbkoTcL2j++D/xpgyEGRD4SnYEcP4lZoBuX jyOKLEIn/JYIGIJk9AcQu3hrUz3QK7SQcrILJ3c2pZUritUXAjmrWxOBy+Sedmai9lQ/ E1Ia+HiRCxAbAyf5ZexBs0UvXBzSEqCujNlWaCrOjaUwyI3G2ongWPg0NeXb4ACu9Xff 4P8irW1Q+oJ+2kjdcRe1UFpMQF7v61AKn716Wyu9o1KholTaSFG/qD8lvuxrxBOu19/e LBu6wBNJeRFhrnU1zFlC0lW5FeMDUUJZQfR9+9hTDz+j0qFFzE/uHJJ0Q/Q2e/7ifm8V pVig== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a72si15352088edf.380.2021.02.16.06.09.49; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 06:10:12 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229952AbhBPOIe (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:08:34 -0500 Received: from angie.orcam.me.uk ([157.25.102.26]:34258 "EHLO angie.orcam.me.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229913AbhBPOIY (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:08:24 -0500 Received: by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 500) id C062592009D; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:07:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90AE92009C; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:07:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:07:42 +0100 (CET) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Thomas Bogendoerfer cc: Tiezhu Yang , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xuefeng Li Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MIPS: Make check condition for SDBBP consistent with EJTAG spec In-Reply-To: <20210209140018.GA13043@alpha.franken.de> Message-ID: References: <1612847125-3141-1-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> <20210209121124.GA11134@alpha.franken.de> <03fcfc00-acdd-a949-046c-3002195d6024@loongson.cn> <20210209140018.GA13043@alpha.franken.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/genex.S b/arch/mips/kernel/genex.S > > > > index bcce32a..743d759 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/mips/kernel/genex.S > > > > +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/genex.S > > > > @@ -349,8 +349,8 @@ NESTED(ejtag_debug_handler, PT_SIZE, sp) > > > > MTC0 k0, CP0_DESAVE > > > > mfc0 k0, CP0_DEBUG > > > > - sll k0, k0, 30 # Check for SDBBP. > > > > - bgez k0, ejtag_return > > > > + andi k0, k0, MIPS_DEBUG_DBP # Check for SDBBP. > > > > + beqz k0, ejtag_return > > > IMHO both implementations are doing the same thing. > > > > When I read the original code, it looks a little confusing > > at first glance, the initial aim of this patch is to make the code > > more readable and easier to understand. > > which your version is, but the description sounds like there is a semantic > change somewhere (at least to me). So with a little bit rewording I'm > fine with applying your patch. Why is it confusing? This is assembly and you're supposed to understand this stuff when looking into it. Don't fix what ain't broke! Maciej