On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:17:24PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > > > That's probably going to be a more reliable design, > > though I would still consider leaving the TLB refill handler > > untouched and counting on the fact that k1 must contain > > a non-lethal EntryLo value on return from the exception. > > Well, there is a "nop" just before the "eret" in all R4k-style TLB > exception handlers. I see no problem to use the slot for explicit > clobbering of k0 or k1 with a single instruction like "li" or "lui". Now that you say it it's pretty obvious... Thanks, Johannes
