On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, David Daney wrote: > > Shouldn't this be in a generic place such as trap_init instead? > > > > I think it is fine here. If it spreads to more systems, then factoring them > out into trap_init might make sense. For now it doesn't seem like we should > clutter up trap_init when there aren't many microMIPS systems in existence. I disagree. I don't think a generic processor feature should be handled in board-specific files. A kernel built as a microMIPS binary has microMIPS exception handlers so no matter what system it is for it'll need the mode bit set correctly (unless someone implements support for a mixed setup), so having to add this change to some board-specific file for every system that gets support for a microMIPS-ISA-enabled processor looks like no more than a maintenance burden to me. Especially as the !CPU_MICROMIPS version of the function is empty and will be optimised away (although actually it shouldn't be -- it should clear the ISAOnExc bit to avoid surprises). Maciej
