On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:55:42PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:34:15AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:12:47PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > Oh, that's neat - thanks! > > > > > > Well, given that, I can think of two less horrible options: > > > 1) > > > .macro update_sctlr, tmp:req, set=, clear= > > > mrc p15, 0, \tmp, c1, c0, 0 > > > .ifnc \set, > > > orr \tmp, \set > > > .endif > > > .ifnc \clear, > > > mvn \clear, \clear > > > and \tmp, \tmp, \clear > > > > Can't you use bic here? > > Yeah. > > > > .endif > > > mcr p15, 0, \tmp, c1, c0, 0 > > > .endm > > > > > > 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. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
