Re: [PATCH] ARM: vfp: fix fpsid register subarchitecture field maskwidth

From: Stephen Boyd
Date: Tue Feb 26 2013 - 20:37:39 EST

On 02/25/13 12:02, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> This can of worms is getting bigger. We have more problems with our
> handling of the different VFP versions, specifically the handling of
> the EX=0 DEX=0 case.
> VFP common subarch 3 defines the EX=0, DEX=0 encoding to mean one of
> the following conditions have been met:
> 1. an unallocated VFP instruction was encountered.
> In other words, the VFP was the target of the co-processor instruction,
> but the instruction is not a known VFP instruction encoding. This
> should raise an undefined instruction exception.
> 2. an allocated VFP instruction was encountered, but not handled in
> hardware.
> In other words, the instruction is a valid VFP instruction, but the
> hardware has opted not to implement this instruction and wants
> software to emulate it instead.
> (Note: this can also be raised as EX=0, DEX=1 - implementation
> defined!)
> So, if EX or DEX is set, _or_ IXE is set, we pass control to VFP_bounce.
> This is problematical.
> (a) condition (2) above isn't correctly handled for common subarch v3 - it
> is always treated as an undefined instruction, and will result in a
> SIGILL being delivered.
> Now, (a) is just bad behaviour - as we haven't had any reports of this
> yet, I suspect that no one has implemented VFP hardware with this
> behaviour yet.

I believe we ran into this a while ago and fixed it for our chips. We
never sent the patch upstream. Sorry.;a=commitdiff;h=00a13be874f230159a6b7f8cc9d0ff23bc1b7d05

I'm looking into what our bits correspond to. Hopefully get back to you
in 20 something hours.

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at