On 01/19/2015 12:35 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 11:29 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> On 1/16/2015 1:48 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>>> From: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> MIPS R6 redefines several instructions and reduces the immediate
>>> field to 9-bits so add related macros for the microassembler.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Markos Chandras <markos.chandras@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/mips/mm/uasm.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/uasm.c b/arch/mips/mm/uasm.c
>>> index 4adf30284813..6596b6898637 100644
>>> --- a/arch/mips/mm/uasm.c
>>> +++ b/arch/mips/mm/uasm.c
>> [...]
>>> @@ -41,6 +42,8 @@ enum fields {
>>> #define FUNC_SH 0
>>> #define SET_MASK 0x7
>>> #define SET_SH 0
>>> +#define SIMM9_SH 7
>>> +#define SIMM9_MASK 0x1ff
>>>
>>> enum opcode {
>>> insn_invalid,
>>> @@ -116,6 +119,14 @@ static inline u32 build_scimm(u32 arg)
>>> return (arg & SCIMM_MASK) << SCIMM_SH;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static inline u32 build_scimm9(s32 arg)
>>> +{
>>> + WARN((arg > 0x1ff || arg < -0x200),
>>
>> Not 0xFF and -0x100? The values above don't fit into 9 bits...
>
> Hi,
>
> I think 0x1ff and -0x200 fit into 9-bits. Why do you think they don't?
>
I think you are right. I will fix that and the 40/70 patch as well.
--
markos
