[U-Boot-Users] 85xx sync to msync necessary?
Hi,
I found that there was an unclear assembly usage on 'sync' for 85xx in current tree. On P202 of E500CORERM.pdf, it says that 'sync' has replaced by 'msync' in BOOK-E and E500. But there are still some 'sync' for 85xx at cpu/mpc85xx folder and other files like drivers/ tsec.c.
I changed all 'sync' as 'msync' on my customized 8548 boards. Seems no obvious difference. Both OK.
So I wonder whether we should fix it. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Sam
___________________________________________________________ 抢注雅虎免费邮箱-3.5G容量，20M附件！ http://cn.mail.yahoo.com
Sam,
sync and msync end up being the exact same thing on e500. Its better to leave the code in drivers and such to use sync since then it will build on non-e500 cores. But all binutils should assemble sync and msync as the same instruction for e500.
- k
On Dec 6, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Sam Song wrote:
Hi,
I found that there was an unclear assembly usage on 'sync' for 85xx in current tree. On P202 of E500CORERM.pdf, it says that 'sync' has replaced by 'msync' in BOOK-E and E500. But there are still some 'sync' for 85xx at cpu/mpc85xx folder and other files like drivers/ tsec.c.
I changed all 'sync' as 'msync' on my customized 8548 boards. Seems no obvious difference. Both OK.
So I wonder whether we should fix it. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Sam
___________________________________________________________ 抢注雅虎免费邮箱-3.5G容量，20M附件！ http://cn.mail.yahoo.com
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php? page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV________________________________ _______________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
In message 838DB856-592C-4D3E-B7C8-12234B5BB53B@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
sync and msync end up being the exact same thing on e500. Its better to leave the code in drivers and such to use sync since then it will build on non-e500 cores. But all binutils should assemble sync and msync as the same instruction for e500.
Verified on ELDK 4.x:
-> cat foo.c void do_sync() { asm ("sync"); } void do_msync() { asm ("msync"); } -> ppc_85xx-gcc -O -c foo.c -> ppc_85xx-objdump -D -S foo.o
foo.o: file format elf32-powerpc
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <do_sync>: 0: 7c 00 04 ac sync 4: 4e 80 00 20 blr
00000008 <do_msync>: 8: 7c 00 04 ac sync c: 4e 80 00 20 blr ...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote :
Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
sync and msync end up being the exact same thing on e500. Its better to leave the code in drivers and such to use sync since then it will build on non-e500 cores. But all binutils should assemble sync and msync as the same instruction
for > > e500.
Verified on ELDK 4.x:
-> cat foo.c void do_sync() { asm ("sync"); } void do_msync() { asm ("msync"); } -> ppc_85xx-gcc -O -c foo.c -> ppc_85xx-objdump -D -S foo.o
foo.o: file format elf32-powerpc
Disassembly of section .text:
00000000 <do_sync>: 0: 7c 00 04 ac sync 4: 4e 80 00 20 blr
00000008 <do_msync>: 8: 7c 00 04 ac sync c: 4e 80 00 20 blr ...
Uh, clear enough:-)
Thanks a lot,
Sam
___________________________________________________________ Mp3疯狂搜-新歌热歌高速下 http://music.yahoo.com.cn/?source=mail_mailbox_footer
participants (3)
-
Kumar Gala -
Sam Song -
Wolfgang Denk