e500 SPE support

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

I did not know routerboards were PowerPC?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> After talking with others, I'll be creating a new target,
> powerpc/powerpcspe.  This will live in a branch while I stabilize it
> (I'll create a branch this weekend).  My testing will be on the
> Mikrotik RouterBoard RB800, but if anyone has hardware they can test
> on, all the better.
> 
> To keep things simple, I'll be overloading the enable_vec()/save_vec()
> functions, and using this common API between Altivec and SPE.
> 
> - Justin
> 
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Rix <trix at juniper.net> wrote:
>> I see the spe feature is in ToT llvm, but not no target is has this
>> enabled by default.
>> What hardware/software are you using to exercise the feature ?
>> Asking so I could play too :)
>> 
>> Likely folks wanting the feature would be willing to trade off with
>> altivec.
>> So mutually exclusive for me.
>> 
>> Sprinkling code with spe specific seems clunky.
>> Could there be some task bit that linker/compiler sets that the loader
>> uses to do this automagically ?
>> A tie into the task state would help with ptrace and possible debugger
>> support.
>> 
>> Tom
>> 
>> ---
>> Tom Rix
>> Sr. Staff Compiler Engineer
>> trix at juniper.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/4/15, 9:14 PM, "owner-freebsd-ppc at freebsd.org on behalf of Justin
>> Hibbits" <owner-freebsd-ppc at freebsd.org on behalf of chmeeedalf at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I've been doing some work on the e500 Signal Processing Engine (SPE,
>>> sort of like Altivec, only weirder), but have some questions on
>>> implementation:
>>> 
>>> * This is mutually exclusive to Altivec, of course, because it shares
>>> the GPRs, extending them to 64-bits, but only for SPE instructions.
>>> Should the implementation be mutually exclusive, as well? Meaning, is
>>> it better to have enable_spe()/save_spe() strewn throughout the code,
>>> like is done with Altivec and FPU, or is it better to name them
>>> *_vec(), and have a compile-time option of switching between Altivec
>>> and SPE? The userland ABI would be different as well, which brings the
>>> next question:
>>> 
>>> * Do we want another target, like how Linux does it (powerpcspe)?  Or
>>> have this as just a different build option in src.conf?
>>> 
>>> Suggestions are welcome and wanted.
>>> 
>>> - Justin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-ppc at freebsd.org mailing list
>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ppc
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ppc-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ppc at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ppc
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ppc-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"