| Message ID | 20241104001900.682660-9-npiggin@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [PULL,01/67] target/ppc: Set ctx->opcode for decode_insn32() | expand |
04.11.2024 03:17, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > The HFSCR defines were being encoded as bit masks, but the users > expect (and analogous FSCR defines are) bit numbers. > > Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> > --- > target/ppc/cpu.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu.h b/target/ppc/cpu.h > index bd32a1a5f8..f7a2da2bbe 100644 > --- a/target/ppc/cpu.h > +++ b/target/ppc/cpu.h > @@ -635,8 +635,8 @@ FIELD(MSR, LE, MSR_LE, 1) > #define PSSCR_EC PPC_BIT(43) /* Exit Criterion */ > > /* HFSCR bits */ > -#define HFSCR_MSGP PPC_BIT(53) /* Privileged Message Send Facilities */ > -#define HFSCR_BHRB PPC_BIT(59) /* BHRB Instructions */ > +#define HFSCR_MSGP PPC_BIT_NR(53) /* Privileged Message Send Facilities */ > +#define HFSCR_BHRB PPC_BIT_NR(59) /* BHRB Instructions */ v9.0.0-892-g6bfcf1dc23 "target/ppc: Add clrbhrb and mfbhrbe instructions" (ie v9.1.0 release) added the HFSCR_BHRB definition here. While HFSCR_MSGP has been there for a very long time, since v4.2.0-1172-g493028d8d7 (2020). Does it make sense to pick this change to older stable series (9.0 and before) keeping just the HFSCR_MSGP fix? How happened this hasn't been noticed for so long time? Is it enough reason to not bother with older releases? Thanks, /mjt
On Wed Nov 6, 2024 at 1:50 AM AEST, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 04.11.2024 03:17, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > The HFSCR defines were being encoded as bit masks, but the users > > expect (and analogous FSCR defines are) bit numbers. > > > > Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org > > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> > > --- > > target/ppc/cpu.h | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu.h b/target/ppc/cpu.h > > index bd32a1a5f8..f7a2da2bbe 100644 > > --- a/target/ppc/cpu.h > > +++ b/target/ppc/cpu.h > > @@ -635,8 +635,8 @@ FIELD(MSR, LE, MSR_LE, 1) > > #define PSSCR_EC PPC_BIT(43) /* Exit Criterion */ > > > > /* HFSCR bits */ > > -#define HFSCR_MSGP PPC_BIT(53) /* Privileged Message Send Facilities */ > > -#define HFSCR_BHRB PPC_BIT(59) /* BHRB Instructions */ > > +#define HFSCR_MSGP PPC_BIT_NR(53) /* Privileged Message Send Facilities */ > > +#define HFSCR_BHRB PPC_BIT_NR(59) /* BHRB Instructions */ > > v9.0.0-892-g6bfcf1dc23 "target/ppc: Add clrbhrb and mfbhrbe instructions" > (ie v9.1.0 release) added the HFSCR_BHRB definition here. While HFSCR_MSGP > has been there for a very long time, since v4.2.0-1172-g493028d8d7 (2020). > Does it make sense to pick this change to older stable series (9.0 and before) > keeping just the HFSCR_MSGP fix? > > How happened this hasn't been noticed for so long time? Is it enough > reason to not bother with older releases? Mainly because KVM doesn't use the feature. PowerVM does, which is where we caught it recently. I'd probably not bother further backporting. Thanks, Nick
diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu.h b/target/ppc/cpu.h index bd32a1a5f8..f7a2da2bbe 100644 --- a/target/ppc/cpu.h +++ b/target/ppc/cpu.h @@ -635,8 +635,8 @@ FIELD(MSR, LE, MSR_LE, 1) #define PSSCR_EC PPC_BIT(43) /* Exit Criterion */ /* HFSCR bits */ -#define HFSCR_MSGP PPC_BIT(53) /* Privileged Message Send Facilities */ -#define HFSCR_BHRB PPC_BIT(59) /* BHRB Instructions */ +#define HFSCR_MSGP PPC_BIT_NR(53) /* Privileged Message Send Facilities */ +#define HFSCR_BHRB PPC_BIT_NR(59) /* BHRB Instructions */ #define HFSCR_IC_MSGP 0xA #define DBCR0_ICMP (1 << 27)