The integrated assembler of Clang 10 and earlier do not allow to access
the VFP registers through the coprocessor load/store instructions:
arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:342:2: error: invalid operand for instruction
fmxr(FPEXC, fpexc & ~(FPEXC_EX|FPEXC_DEX|FPEXC_FP2V|FPEXC_VV|FPEXC_TRAP_MASK));
^
arch/arm/vfp/vfpinstr.h:79:6: note: expanded from macro 'fmxr'
asm("mcr p10, 7, %0, " vfpreg(_vfp_) ", cr0, 0 @ fmxr " #_vfp_ ", %0"
^
<inline asm>:1:6: note: instantiated into assembly here
mcr p10, 7, r0, cr8, cr0, 0 @ fmxr FPEXC, r0
^
This has been addressed with Clang 11 [0]. However, to support earlier
versions of Clang and for better readability use of VFP assembler
mnemonics still is preferred.
Ideally we would replace this code with the unified assembler language
mnemonics vmrs/vmsr on call sites along with .fpu assembler directives.
The GNU assembler supports the .fpu directive at least since 2.17 (when
documentation has been added). Since Linux requires binutils 2.21 it is
safe to use .fpu directive. However, binutils does not allow to use
FPINST or FPINST2 as an argument to vmrs/vmsr instructions up to
binutils 2.24 (see binutils commit 16d02dc907c5):
arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S: Assembler messages:
arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S:162: Error: operand 0 must be FPSID or FPSCR pr FPEXC -- `vmsr FPINST,r6'
arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S:165: Error: operand 0 must be FPSID or FPSCR pr FPEXC -- `vmsr FPINST2,r8'
arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S:235: Error: operand 1 must be a VFP extension System Register -- `vmrs r3,FPINST'
arch/arm/vfp/vfphw.S:238: Error: operand 1 must be a VFP extension System Register -- `vmrs r12,FPINST2'
Use as-instr in Kconfig to check if FPINST/FPINST2 can be used. If they
can be used make use of .fpu directives and UAL VFP mnemonics for
register access.
This allows to build vfpmodule.c with Clang and its integrated assembler.
[0] https://reviews.llvm.org/D59733
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/905
Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
Based on 2 normalized pattern(s):
this program is free software you can redistribute it and or modify
it under the terms of the gnu general public license version 2 as
published by the free software foundation
this program is free software you can redistribute it and or modify
it under the terms of the gnu general public license version 2 as
published by the free software foundation #
extracted by the scancode license scanner the SPDX license identifier
GPL-2.0-only
has been chosen to replace the boilerplate/reference in 4122 file(s).
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Enrico Weigelt <info@metux.net>
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190604081206.933168790@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
This patch adds the support for VFPv3 (the kernel currently supports
VFPv2). The main difference is 32 double registers (compared to 16).
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Patch from Daniel Jacobowitz
The ARM kernel has several uses of asm("foo%?"). %? is a GCC internal
modifier used to output conditional execution predicates. However, no
version of GCC supports conditionalizing asm statements. GCC 4.2 will
correctly expand %? to the empty string in user asms. Earlier versions may
reuse the condition from the previous instruction. In 'if (foo) asm
("bar%?");' this is somewhat likely to be right... but not reliable.
So, the only safe thing to do is to remove the uses of %?. I believe
the tlbflush.h occurances were supposed to be removed before, based
on the comment about %? not working at the top of that file.
Old versions of GCC could omit branches around user asms if the asm didn't
mark the condition codes as clobbered. This problem hasn't been seen on any
recent (3.x or 4.x) GCC, but it could theoretically happen. So, where
%? was removed a cc clobber was added.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
Stefan Agner