Re: [PULL 08/67] target/ppc: Fix HFSCR facility checks

[Michael Tokarev]

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