On Nov 12, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 18:31:21 +0100
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> orxh (r1 << 8) & 0x0100, r2 & ~0x0100, r2
>
> This is not really going to fly. If you want this highlevel stuff, you
> should port a C compiler to the architecture.
> This is assembly. It doesn't know about reg<<imm or similar stuff.
Yes, you are right and, in fact, the patched assembler will just accept only
what the cpu may execute, I does not pretend to be a C compiler. It's just
another way for assembling "or with shift and select" (or jzx), and this way
really enhances the readability of the assembly code. Give it a try :-).
If I'm not wrong, it's like "mov 0x1234, r1": such instruction doesn't exist
but the assembler accepts it and converts to "orx 7, 8, 0x12, 0x34, r1". So why
not adding more assembly options so that the code can be easily understood?
Consider these lines
orx 0, 5, 0x001, SPR_BRC, SPR_BRC
orx 0, 3, 0x000, SPR_BRC, SPR_BRC
orx 1, 0, GP_REG1, SPR_TXE0_PHY_CTL, SPR_TXE0_PHY_CTL;
and compare them to
#define FRAME_BURST 0x0020
#define CONTENTION_PARAM_MODIFIED 0x0008
#define FRAME_ENCODING 0x0003
orxh FRAME_BURST, SPR_BRC & ~FRAME_BURST, SPR_BRC
orxh 0x0000, SPR_BRC & ~CONTENTION_PARAM_MODIFIED, SPR_BRC
orxh r1 & FRAME_ENCODING, SPR_TXE0_PHY_CTL & ~ FRAME_ENCODING,
SPR_TXE0_PHY_CTL
Regards,
-Francesco
>
> --
> Greetings, Michael.
_______________________________________________
b43-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/b43-dev
