On 2/22/2013 10:27 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 08:08:05AM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> From: Steve Muckle <smuckle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The subarchitecture field in the fpsid register is 7 bits wide.
>> The topmost bit is used to designate that the subarchitecture
>> designer is not ARM. We use this field to determine which VFP
>> version is supported by the CPU. Since the topmost bit is masked
>> off we detect non-ARM subarchitectures as supporting only
>> HWCAP_VFP and not HWCAP_VFPv3 as it should be for Qualcomm's
>> processors.
> I'm struggling to see why this has anything to do with the hwcaps being set
> incorrectly. What value do you have in fpsid? As far as I can tell, the
> subarchitecture bits 6:0 should start at 0x40 for you, right?
Yes it does.
>
> I can see cases for changing this code, I just don't see why it would go
> wrong in the case you're describing.
VFP_arch = (vfpsid & FPSID_ARCH_MASK) >> FPSID_ARCH_BIT;
causes VFP_arch to be equal to 0 because 0x40 & 0xf == 0.
and then a little bit later we have
if (VFP_arch >= 2) {
elf_hwcap |= HWCAP_VFPv3;
The branch is not taken so we never set VFPv3.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
