On 03.09.19 12:53, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 8/30/19 2:07 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 26.08.19 18:35, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> For now let's concentrate on the error conditions.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
> [...]
>>> +static inline unsigned long stsi_get_fc(void *addr)
>>> +{
>>> + register unsigned long r0 asm("0") = 0;
>>> + register unsigned long r1 asm("1") = 0;
>>> + int cc;
>>> +
>>> + asm volatile("stsi 0(%3)\n"
>>> + "ipm %[cc]\n"
>>> + "srl %[cc],28\n"
>>> + : "+d" (r0), [cc] "=d" (cc)
>>> + : "d" (r1), "a" (addr)
>>
>> maybe [addr], so you can avoid the %3 above
>
> Sure, maybe Thomas can also fix that on picking for the previous patch?
>
>>
>>> + : "cc", "memory");
>>> + assert(!cc);
>>> + return r0 >> 28;
>>
>> I think I'd prefer "get_configuration_level()" and move it to an header
>> - because the fc actually allows more values (0, 15 ...) - however the
>> level can be used as an fc.
>
> The rename works for me, but that's currently used only once, so why
> should it go to a header file?
No strong opinion about that, I would have moved it out of the test to
make the test itself more compact .
>
> I though about starting lib/s390x/asm/misc-instr.h if we have enough (>=
> 2) instruction definitions which are shared.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
