Currently unsigned ints are used to represent instructions on powerpc.
This has worked well as instructions have always been 4 byte words.
However, ISA v3.1 introduces some changes to instructions that mean
this scheme will no longer work as well. This change is Prefixed
Instructions. A prefixed instruction is made up of a word prefix
followed by a word suffix to make an 8 byte double word instruction.
No matter the endianness of the system the prefix always comes first.
Prefixed instructions are only planned for powerpc64.
Introduce a ppc_inst type to represent both prefixed and word
instructions on powerpc64 while keeping it possible to exclusively
have word instructions on powerpc32.
Signed-off-by: Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@gmail.com>
[mpe: Fix compile error in emulate_spe()]
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200506034050.24806-12-jniethe5@gmail.com
In preparation for instructions having a more complex data type start
using a macro, ppc_inst(), for making an instruction out of a u32. A
macro is used so that instructions can be used as initializer elements.
Currently this does nothing, but it will allow for creating a data type
that can represent prefixed instructions.
Signed-off-by: Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@gmail.com>
[mpe: Change include guard to _ASM_POWERPC_INST_H]
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <alistair@popple.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200506034050.24806-7-jniethe5@gmail.com
Based on 1 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 as published by
the free software foundation either version 2 of the license or at
your option any later version
extracted by the scancode license scanner the SPDX license identifier
GPL-2.0-or-later
has been chosen to replace the boilerplate/reference in 3029 file(s).
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
Cc: linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190527070032.746973796@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Currently, CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL just means "I _want_ to use jump label".
The jump label is controlled by HAVE_JUMP_LABEL, which is defined
like this:
#if defined(CC_HAVE_ASM_GOTO) && defined(CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL)
# define HAVE_JUMP_LABEL
#endif
We can improve this by testing 'asm goto' support in Kconfig, then
make JUMP_LABEL depend on CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO.
Ugly #ifdef HAVE_JUMP_LABEL will go away, and CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL will
match to the real kernel capability.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc)
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Since we've already stepped away from ENABLE is a JMP and DISABLE is a
NOP with the branch_default bits, and are going to make it even worse,
rename it to make it all clearer.
This way we don't mix multiple levels of logic attributes, but have a
plain 'physical' name for what the current instruction patching status
of a jump label is.
This is a first step in removing the naming confusion that has led to
a stream of avoidable bugs such as:
a833581e37 ("x86, perf: Fix static_key bug in load_mm_cr4()")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
[ Beefed up the changelog. ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Should do what other architectures do and wrap all that code into
the appropriate ifdef
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
This patch adds support for the new "jump label" feature.
Unlike x86 and sparc we just merrily patch the code with no locks etc,
as far as I know this is safe, but I'm not really sure what the x86/sparc
code is protecting against so maybe it's not.
I also don't see any reason for us to implement the poke_early() routine,
even though sparc does.
[BenH: Updated the patch to upstream generic changes]
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Jordan Niethe