On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 14:13 +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 09/07/2016 01:08 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 12:50 +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > > > > > > This is a bit broader than Ben's patch which used > > > PPC_SEGMENT_64B. > > > it's basically !PPC_64B which includes the e5500. > > > > > > If so, here is a proposal below adding a new PPC_RFI in the > > > "PowerPC Instructions types definitions" enum for that purpose. > > > Not much bits left there. > > > > Why not stick to PPC_SEGMENT_64B ? > > I am trying to remove the rfi instruction from the set of the CPU > and I think we need to introduce a new PPC_* bit for GEN_HANDLER to :
What does it buy you instead of just having the test in the handler ? > +GEN_HANDLER(rfi, 0x13, 0x12, 0x01, 0x03FF8001, PPC_RFI), > > we can also keep the test on PPC_SEGMENT_64B in the handler which > works perfectly fine. > > > > > rfi exists on all 32-bit processors and all non-Book3S (aka server > > aka > > segment/hash) 64-bit. So PPC_SEGMENT_64B is the test we want. > > > > IE. rfi does exist on e5500 > > ok. > > Cheers, > C.
