Re: [PATCH] arm: Add condition code check to SWP emulator

From: Russell King - ARM Linux
Date: Sun Nov 20 2011 - 03:41:34 EST


On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 05:04:30PM -0800, Stepan Moskovchenko wrote:
> +static int check_condition(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int insn)
> +{
> + unsigned int base_cond, neg, cond = 0;
> + unsigned int cpsr_z, cpsr_c, cpsr_n, cpsr_v;
> +
> + cpsr_n = (regs->ARM_cpsr & PSR_N_BIT) ? 1 : 0;
> + cpsr_z = (regs->ARM_cpsr & PSR_Z_BIT) ? 1 : 0;
> + cpsr_c = (regs->ARM_cpsr & PSR_C_BIT) ? 1 : 0;
> + cpsr_v = (regs->ARM_cpsr & PSR_V_BIT) ? 1 : 0;
> +
> + /* Upper 3 bits indicate condition, lower bit incicates negation */
> + base_cond = insn >> 29;
> + neg = insn & BIT(28) ? 1 : 0;
> +
> + switch (base_cond) {
> + case 0x0: /* equal */
> + cond = cpsr_z;
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x1: /* carry set */
> + cond = cpsr_c;
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x2: /* minus / negative */
> + cond = cpsr_n;
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x3: /* overflow */
> + cond = cpsr_v;
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x4: /* unsigned higher */
> + cond = (cpsr_c == 1) && (cpsr_z == 0);
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x5: /* signed greater / equal */
> + cond = (cpsr_n == cpsr_v);
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x6: /* signed greater */
> + cond = (cpsr_z == 0) && (cpsr_n == cpsr_v);
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x7: /* always */
> + cond = 1;
> + break;
> + };
> +
> + return cond && !neg;

There's a much better algorithm to check this. See the bottom of
arch/arm/nwfpe/fpopcode.c.

It would probably be best for there to be a common function for doing
this kind of check, rather than having several implementations of it
scattered around the kernel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/