From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfc] MSR and System regs for RedBoot target
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:24:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D8A5CB9.5040106@ges.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86hehdp9dn.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
> 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'll park this in my sysregs branch. RedBoot is available at
>> http://sources.redhat.com/redboot/
>>
>> comments?
>
>
> Is there consensus yet on how we should create the types for those
> flag bits? If we choose Michael Ludvigs approach, this code should be
> converted before we check it in.
Yes, this stuff will need to be updated.
(I need to make those registers lowercase as well).
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-19 23:24 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 [this message]
2002-09-19 16:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
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=3D8A5CB9.5040106@ges.redhat.com \
--to=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