On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 1 September 2012 20:40, Christoffer Dall
> <c.d...@virtualopensystems.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 1 September 2012 10:16, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/29/2012 11:21 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>>>> Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>> ...but if we do go this path, you can't use coprocessor 0
>>>>>> to mean core register -- cp0 could be a valid coprocessor
>>>>>> (the ARM ARM reserves cp0..cp7 for "vendor specific features").
>>>>>> Use something outside 0..15.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, changed that too (16).
>>>
>>>> And tomorrow they will add 16.
>>>
>>> Not possible in the instruction encoding :-) We haven't used
>>> anywhere near all the coprocessors (even given we've let the
>>> vendors have 0..7, ARM itself uses only 10 and 11 for the FPU,
>>> 14 for debug/perf and 15 for system control (and 14 and 15 still
>>> have lots of spare space).
>
>> Yeah, but folding core registers under coprocessors feels just
>> too fishy, so I think we should have a separate field.
>
> I never really thought of the top half of the index encoding
> as being particularly a coprocessor-number specific thing in
> the first place. It's just 16 bits of "what is this thing
> anyway?", where each coprocessor gets a bit of the space, and
> so will the GIC, and the VFP regs, and so on. We just happened
> to use 0..15 of the "what is this?" space for cp0..cp15.
>
> (Incidentally, the term "coprocessor" is now basically just a
> historical artefact. The bits of the CPU you get at via the
> "coprocessor" registers and instruction encoding space are
> not separate functional units, they're part of the core.)
>
that's fine, but then the #define's shouldn't be called something with
COPROC in their names.

-Christoffer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to