On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:33:59AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > > Am 29.08.2014 um 03:06 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@au1.ibm.com>: > > > >> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 02:40 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >>> On 29.08.14 00:25, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 00:18 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>> I strongly disagree with David. Legally there is no difference between a > >>>> .bin file that contains code and an array made of instructions. And the > >>>> more target code we can keep outside of QEMU the better. > >>> > >>> Ugh ... having a separate file with it's own build system etc... for 5 > >>> instructions is borderline ridiculous too :-) > >> > >> Then don't use it - nobody's forcing you to do so :). Just use the > >> provided binary. I fail to see the difference between > >> > >> uint32_t rtas_blob[] = { INST_SC1, INST_BLR }; > >> > >> and > >> > >> uint32_t *rtas_blob; > >> load_file_from_disk(rtas_blob); > >> > >> except that we're using an actual assembler ;). > > > > So you fail to see the difference with an array of 5 words vs. running > > through thousands of instructions & syscall to read those same 5 words > > from disk ? :-) > > I fail to see a problem, yeah :). Imagine the same thing on x86 with > its completely messed up instruction set. Would you still advocate > for in-qemu code or would you prefer to have a compiler between you > and the ugly opcodes?
If it was only 20 bytes worth, and by it's nature unlikely to need changing, then, yes, I would, even with the extra x86 ugliness. Assuming it was well commented, obviously. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgpcnr6AOYLBh.pgp
Description: PGP signature