Re: [PATCH RFC 19/67] MIPS: asm: atomic: Update asm and ISA constrains for MIPS R6 support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



David Daney <ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 12/18/2014 07:09 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> MIPS R6 changed the opcodes for LL/SC instructions and reduced the
>> offset field to 9-bits. This has some undesired effects with the "m"
>> constrain since it implies a 16-bit immediate. As a result of which,
>> add a register ("r") constrain as well to make sure the entire address
>> is loaded to a register before the LL/SC operations. Also use macro
>> to set the appropriate ISA for the asm blocks
>>
>
> Has support for MIPS R6 been added to GCC?
>
> If so, that should include a proper constraint to be used with the new
> offset restrictions.  We should probably use that, instead of forcing
> to a "r" constraint.
>
>> Cc: Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Markos Chandras <markos.chandras@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
>> index 6dd6bfc607e9..8669e0ec97e3 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/atomic.h
>> @@ -60,13 +60,13 @@ static __inline__ void atomic_##op(int i, atomic_t * v)				\
>>   										\
>>   		do {								\
>>   			__asm__ __volatile__(					\
>> -			"	.set	arch=r4000			\n"	\
>> -			"	ll	%0, %1		# atomic_" #op "\n"	\
>> +			"	.set	"MIPS_ISA_ARCH_LEVEL"		\n"	\
>> +			"	ll	%0, 0(%3)	# atomic_" #op "\n"	\
>>   			"	" #asm_op " %0, %2			\n"	\
>> -			"	sc	%0, %1				\n"	\
>> +			"	sc	%0, 0(%3)			\n"	\
>>   			"	.set	mips0				\n"	\
>>   			: "=&r" (temp), "+m" (v->counter)			\
>> -			: "Ir" (i));						\
>> +			: "Ir" (i), "r" (&v->counter));				\
>
> You lost the "m" constraint, but are still modifying memory.  There is
> no "memory" clobber here, so we are no longer correctly describing
> what is happening.

Rather than add a blanket "memory" clobber, it's better to keep the old
memory operand even if it is never used.  GCC will still assume it has
been modified.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@xxxxxxxxx





[Index of Archives]     [Linux MIPS Home]     [LKML Archive]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux]     [Git]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]

  Powered by Linux