On 6/2/20 1:07 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hi! > > On 6/2/20 1:04 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> What do you mean with the sentence "when arch/ppc/ was still king"? >> >> Ah, Bartl copied that from my email ;-) >> >> There used to be APUS support under arch/ppc/. >> Later, 32-bit arch/ppc/ and 64-bit arch/ppc64/ were merged in a new\ >> architecture port under arch/powerpc/, and the old ones were dropped. >> APUS was never converted, and thus dropped. > > Ah, yes. Similar to the merge with x86. > >>> Does that mean - in the case we would re-add APUS support in the future, that >>> these particular changes would not be necessary? >> >> They would still be necessary, as PowerPC doesn't grok m68k instructions. >> Alternatively, we could just drop the m68k inline asm, and retain the C >> version instead? I have no idea how big of a difference that would make >> on m68k, using a more modern compiler than when the code was written >> originally. > > Hmm, no idea. I would keep the assembly for the time being. This was just > a question out of curiosity. We could still consider such a change if > someone should consider working on APUS support again. > >> Note that all of this is used only for cursor handling, which I doubt is >> actually used by any user space application. The only exception is the >> DIVUL() macro, which is used once during initialization, thus also not >> performance critical. > I see, thanks. Since the code in question is not performance critical it indeed seems to be good idea to use C version. However it still would need be tested on the hardware (or emulator at least) so for the time being I think that we should just add another FIXME comment instead of doing real code changes.. Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
