Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] target-tile: Firstly add to qemu with minimized features

[Chen Gang S]

Excuse me, after comparing the code details between kernel version
disassembler and binutils version disassembler, I am sure the kernel
version disassembler is the part of the binutils version disassembler:

 - kernel version is DISASM_ONLY.

 - kernel version does not need BFD_RELOC.

 - kernel version has defined __KERNEL__ (so need not check it again).

 - kernel version decode_X1_fsm[1206] is older than binutils version
   decode_X1_fsm[1266].

I guess, for qemu, we need !DISASM_ONLY, and may need BFD_RELOC, and may
need the latest decode_X1_fsm, and also may need !__KERNEL__ -- which
means we will use the full binutils version disassembler!!

In current condition, I really don't know how to do next. Welcome any
ideas, and suggestions.


Thanks.

On 2/16/15 11:40, Chen Gang S wrote:
> Excuse me, I want to consult the related information about SPR.
> 
> For SPRs (Special Purpose Register) under tilegx, I can not get related
> documents (I only got the tilepro related document for SPR). After read
> through the source code of Linux kernel for tile, I guess:
> 
>  - SPRs are in "arch/tile/include/uapi/arch/spr_def_64.h".
> 
>  - SPRs are all 64-bit registers (I referenced the 'interrupt_mask' and
>    CHIP_HAS_SPLIT_INTR_MASK to know about it).
> 
> If what I guess is incorrect, please let me know. And welcome to provide
> tilegx SPR related documents, too.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On 2/14/15 23:53, Chen Gang S wrote:
>> On 2/14/15 13:47, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 14 February 2015 at 03:37, Chris Metcalf <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure whether Tilera can simply re-release the tilegx-specific stuff
>>>> from binutils as a separate tarball with GPL v2 licensing.  Hopefully we 
>>>> can
>>>> avoid having to figure that out. :-)
>>>
>>> I believe it is theoretically possible (the usual FSF copyright arrangements
>>> involve the original authors giving the copyright to the FSF but being
>>> granted back a right to distribute their work under other licenses).
>>> However it is definitely a "check with your lawyers" kind of question
>>> and I entirely appreciate the desire to avoid having to go down that
>>> route :-)
>>>
>>
>> For me, the main feature of kernel disassembly implementation is almost
>> the same as the feature of binutils disassembly implementation. And all
>> of related code are not quite much (only several thousand lines),
>>
>> So at present, I guess, we needn't consider more about the related
>> license.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> 

-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed