Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
On 06/08/2012 05:19 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:43 AM,g...@snapgear.com wrote: From: Greg Ungererg...@uclinux.org All current ColdFire CPUs are able to support unaligned memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire. It seems that the current restriction was inherrited from the early non-MMU support for the basic 68000 proecssors - which do not support unaligned accesses. Signed-off-by: Greg Ungererg...@uclinux.org I'll add this to my tree, as it depends on the other CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED patches. Thanks Geert! Regards Greg -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-m68k in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
Hi Greg, On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:25:44PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Hi Philippe, On 08/06/12 23:35, Philippe De Muyter wrote: ... I mentionned that only to make you able to soften the commit comment :) Ok, makes sense. I should probably have mentioned that this means the ColdFire processors currently support by Linux :-) Something like: All of the current Linux supported ColdFire CPUs handle unaligned memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire. If we ever support a specific ColdFire CPU that does not support unaligned accesses then we can insert the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED for that specific CPU type. That's perfect. The line about dumb copying of the m68knommu settings was too much self-flagellation for you to my eyes :) Philippe ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Philippe De Muyter p...@macqel.be wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:25:44PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
On 08/06/12 23:35, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
...
I mentionned that only to make you able to soften the commit comment :)
Ok, makes sense. I should probably have mentioned that this means
the ColdFire processors currently support by Linux :-)
Something like:
All of the current Linux supported ColdFire CPUs handle unaligned
memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option
selection for ColdFire. If we ever support a specific ColdFire CPU
that does not support unaligned accesses then we can insert the
CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED for that specific CPU type.
That's perfect. The line about dumb copying of the m68knommu settings
was too much self-flagellation for you to my eyes :)
So I rewrote history on my for-3.6 branch...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
___
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
On 13/06/12 06:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Philippe De Muyterp...@macqel.be wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:25:44PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: On 08/06/12 23:35, Philippe De Muyter wrote: ... I mentionned that only to make you able to soften the commit comment :) Ok, makes sense. I should probably have mentioned that this means the ColdFire processors currently support by Linux :-) Something like: á All of the current Linux supported ColdFire CPUs handle unaligned á memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option á selection for ColdFire. If we ever support a specific ColdFire CPU á that does not support unaligned accesses then we can insert the á CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED for that specific CPU type. That's perfect. áThe line about dumb copying of the m68knommu settings was too much self-flagellation for you to my eyes :) So I rewrote history on my for-3.6 branch... Thanks Geert! Regards Greg Greg Ungerer -- Principal EngineerEMAIL: g...@snapgear.com SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 8 Gardner Close FAX: +61 7 3217 5323 Milton, QLD, 4064, AustraliaWEB: http://www.SnapGear.com ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
Hi Philippe, On 08/06/12 23:35, Philippe De Muyter wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 10:19:43PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Hi Philippe, On 06/08/2012 08:39 PM, Philippe De Muyter wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:43:00PM +1000, g...@snapgear.com wrote: From: Greg Ungererg...@uclinux.org All current ColdFire CPUs are able to support unaligned memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire. It seems that the current restriction was inherrited from the early non-MMU support for the basic 68000 proecssors - which do not support unaligned accesses. It seems that the first ColdFires needed the restriction : I read in the MCF5200 ColdFire Family ProgrammerÆs Reference Manual : The ColdFire processor default configuration supports word- and longword-sized operand references on 0-modulo-2 and 0-modulo-4 addresses, respectively. All other references are defined as misaligned accesses. Any attempt to access a misaligned operand generates an address-error exception, unless the optional hardware module for handling misalignment is present. This misalignment module converts any misaligned operand references into a series of aligned bus cycles to access the data. The existence of the misalignment module is implementation-dependent and is documented in the appropriate ColdFire userÆs manual. I mentionned that only to make you able to soften the commit comment :) Ok, makes sense. I should probably have mentioned that this means the ColdFire processors currently support by Linux :-) Something like: All of the current Linux supported ColdFire CPUs handle unaligned memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire. If we ever support a specific ColdFire CPU that does not support unaligned accesses then we can insert the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED for that specific CPU type. I wish Freescale really did make that clear within the doco for each part! The oldest (and I assume simplest) part we support is the 5206, and it does explicitly state in the MCF5206UM that it supports unaligned accesses (Section 6.6). It is not as clear as this in some of the other CPU/SoC User Manuals that I looked through. I am pretty confident that all the parts we currently support in Linux do unaligned accesses. I agree. And if some parts did not implement it, we'd see it quickly. Yep. Regards Greg Greg Ungerer -- Principal EngineerEMAIL: g...@snapgear.com SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 8 Gardner Close FAX: +61 7 3217 5323 Milton, QLD, 4064, AustraliaWEB: http://www.SnapGear.com ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:43 AM, g...@snapgear.com wrote:
From: Greg Ungerer g...@uclinux.org
All current ColdFire CPUs are able to support unaligned memory accesses.
So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire.
It seems that the current restriction was inherrited from the early non-MMU
support for the basic 68000 proecssors - which do not support unaligned
accesses.
Signed-off-by: Greg Ungerer g...@uclinux.org
I'll add this to my tree, as it depends on the other
CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED patches.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
___
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:43:00PM +1000, g...@snapgear.com wrote: From: Greg Ungerer g...@uclinux.org All current ColdFire CPUs are able to support unaligned memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire. It seems that the current restriction was inherrited from the early non-MMU support for the basic 68000 proecssors - which do not support unaligned accesses. It seems that the first ColdFires needed the restriction : I read in the MCF5200 ColdFire Family Programmer’s Reference Manual : The ColdFire processor default configuration supports word- and longword-sized operand references on 0-modulo-2 and 0-modulo-4 addresses, respectively. All other references are defined as misaligned accesses. Any attempt to access a misaligned operand generates an address-error exception, unless the optional hardware module for handling misalignment is present. This misalignment module converts any misaligned operand references into a series of aligned bus cycles to access the data. The existence of the misalignment module is implementation-dependent and is documented in the appropriate ColdFire user’s manual. Philippe ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
Hi Philippe, On 06/08/2012 08:39 PM, Philippe De Muyter wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:43:00PM +1000, g...@snapgear.com wrote: From: Greg Ungererg...@uclinux.org All current ColdFire CPUs are able to support unaligned memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire. It seems that the current restriction was inherrited from the early non-MMU support for the basic 68000 proecssors - which do not support unaligned accesses. It seems that the first ColdFires needed the restriction : I read in the MCF5200 ColdFire Family ProgrammerÆs Reference Manual : The ColdFire processor default configuration supports word- and longword-sized operand references on 0-modulo-2 and 0-modulo-4 addresses, respectively. All other references are defined as misaligned accesses. Any attempt to access a misaligned operand generates an address-error exception, unless the optional hardware module for handling misalignment is present. This misalignment module converts any misaligned operand references into a series of aligned bus cycles to access the data. The existence of the misalignment module is implementation-dependent and is documented in the appropriate ColdFire userÆs manual. I wish Freescale really did make that clear within the doco for each part! The oldest (and I assume simplest) part we support is the 5206, and it does explicitly state in the MCF5206UM that it supports unaligned accesses (Section 6.6). It is not as clear as this in some of the other CPU/SoC User Manuals that I looked through. I am pretty confident that all the parts we currently support in Linux do unaligned accesses. Regards Greg Greg Ungerer -- Principal EngineerEMAIL: g...@snapgear.com SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 8 Gardner Close,FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Milton, QLD, 4064, AustraliaWEB: http://www.SnapGear.com ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses
Hi Greg, On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 10:19:43PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Hi Philippe, On 06/08/2012 08:39 PM, Philippe De Muyter wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:43:00PM +1000, g...@snapgear.com wrote: From: Greg Ungererg...@uclinux.org All current ColdFire CPUs are able to support unaligned memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire. It seems that the current restriction was inherrited from the early non-MMU support for the basic 68000 proecssors - which do not support unaligned accesses. It seems that the first ColdFires needed the restriction : I read in the MCF5200 ColdFire Family ProgrammerÆs Reference Manual : The ColdFire processor default configuration supports word- and longword-sized operand references on 0-modulo-2 and 0-modulo-4 addresses, respectively. All other references are defined as misaligned accesses. Any attempt to access a misaligned operand generates an address-error exception, unless the optional hardware module for handling misalignment is present. This misalignment module converts any misaligned operand references into a series of aligned bus cycles to access the data. The existence of the misalignment module is implementation-dependent and is documented in the appropriate ColdFire userÆs manual. I mentionned that only to make you able to soften the commit comment :) I wish Freescale really did make that clear within the doco for each part! The oldest (and I assume simplest) part we support is the 5206, and it does explicitly state in the MCF5206UM that it supports unaligned accesses (Section 6.6). It is not as clear as this in some of the other CPU/SoC User Manuals that I looked through. I am pretty confident that all the parts we currently support in Linux do unaligned accesses. I agree. And if some parts did not implement it, we'd see it quickly. Regards Philippe ___ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
