Right now our test cases fold the SPRs into the GPRs. That makes
debugging fails more difficult than it needs to be, so print
out the CTR, LR and CR.
We still need to print the XER, but that is in two spots in microwatt
and will take some more work.
This also adds many instructions to the tests that we have added
lately including overflow instructions, CR logicals and mt/mfxer.
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@linux.ibm.com>
The carry is currently internal to execute1. We don't handle any of
the other XER fields.
This creates type called "xer_common_t" that contains the commonly
used XER bits (CA, CA32, SO, OV, OV32).
The value is stored in the CR file (though it could be a separate
module). The rest of the bits will be implemented as a separate
SPR and the two parts reconciled in mfspr/mtspr in latter commits.
We always read XER in decode2 (there is little point not to)
and send it down all pipeline branches as it will be needed in
writeback for all type of instructions when CR0:SO needs to be
updated (such forms exist for all pipeline branches even if we don't
yet implement them).
To avoid having to track XER hazards, we forward it back in EX1. This
assumes that other pipeline branches that can modify it (mult and div)
are running single issue for now.
One additional hazard to beware of is an XER:SO modifying instruction
in EX1 followed immediately by a store conditional. Due to our writeback
latency, the store will go down the LSU with the previous XER value,
thus the stcx. will set CR0:SO using an obsolete SO value.
I doubt there exist any code relying on this behaviour being correct
but we should account for it regardless, possibly by ensuring that
stcx. remain single issue initially, or later by adding some minimal
tracking or moving the LSU into the same pipeline as execute.
Missing some obscure XER affecting instructions like addex or mcrxrx.
[paulus@ozlabs.org - fix CA32 and OV32 for OP_ADD, fix order of
arguments to set_ov]
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
We weren't actually forwarding writes in the same cycle. Not a
problem right now, but noticed when testing the pipelining series.
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@linux.ibm.com>
It simulated fine, but didn't synthesize. Fix some obvious issues
to get us going again.
Fixes: 9fbaea6f08 ("Rework CR file and add forwarding")
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@linux.ibm.com>
Handle the CR as a single field with per nibble enables. Forward any
writes in the same cycle.
If this proves to be an issue for timing, we may want to revisit
this in the future. For now, it keeps things simple.
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@linux.ibm.com>
Anton Blanchard