From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfc] MSR and System regs for RedBoot target
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020919232807.GA14613@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D8A5CB9.5040106@ges.redhat.com>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 07:24:41PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>The attached (a patch against my sysregs branch) based mostly by code
> >>previously written by Fernando Nasser, adds MSR and system register
> >>support for an i386 RedBoot target. They each get their own group.
> >>That way:
> >> info registers msr
> >>and
> >>info registers system
> >>works (but MSR and SYSTEM registers are not displayed by ``info
> >>registers''.).
> >
> >
> >Those system registers seem like a good idea to me. I'm not so sure
> >about those MSRs.
>
> I don't know either here. I'm going through old lost changes.
>
> >>The patch (apart from demonstrating that reggroups really do work :-)
> >>identifies a number of issues:
> >>
> >>- The patch makes RedBoot the default i386 abi -- if nothing else hits,
> >>this gets to be it. Its done by brute force. This goes back to the
> >>default discussed earlier for the ``set osabi'' command. Better re-read
> >>the thread ...
> >
> >
> >Does the OS/ABI have to be named "RedBoot"? I think most of this
> >stuff could just as well be added to the generic i386 target.
>
> It depends.
>
> The MSR registers are implemented in a RedBoot specific way - it uses
> target_query() and a qMSR packet. The qMSR packet came about because
> there are potentially ~4gb of MSR registers and the remote protocol
> doesn't support sparse register numbers.
>
> There are several possible paths here:
> - leave qMSR as something RedBoot specific
> - formalize it and make it part of the protocol
> - provide a mechanism for handling sparse remote protocol register
> numbers so that [Pp] packets can be used.
I'm all for that last one... but it's tied in with all the
defining-remote-register-mapping discussions that never seem to get
implemented.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-19 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-28 21:42 Andrew Cagney
2002-08-29 15:52 ` Mark Kettenis
2002-09-19 16:24 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-19 16:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020919232807.GA14613@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=ac131313@ges.redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox