From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4932 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2002 23:28:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4918 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 23:28:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 23:28:12 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17sBeR-0008G1-00; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:28:07 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17sAiN-0003o1-00; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:28:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] MSR and System regs for RedBoot target Message-ID: <20020919232807.GA14613@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D6D9B48.70407@ges.redhat.com> <86hehdp9dn.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3D8A5CB9.5040106@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D8A5CB9.5040106@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00505.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 07:24:41PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Andrew Cagney 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