From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4002 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2002 23:24:45 -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 3994 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 23:24:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 23:24:44 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2813F3DBB; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D8A5CB9.5040106@ges.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:24:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] MSR and System regs for RedBoot target References: <3D6D9B48.70407@ges.redhat.com> <86hehdp9dn.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00504.txt.bz2 > 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'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