Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] efi: preserve NEON registers on UEFI services calls

[PATCH v2 0/2] efi: preserve NEON registers on UEFI services calls · Ard Biesheuvel <hidden> · 2014-06-26
[PATCH v2 1/2] efi/x86: move UEFI Runtime Services wrappers to generic code · Ard Biesheuvel <hidden> · 2014-06-26
[PATCH v2 1/2] efi/x86: move UEFI Runtime Services wrappers to generic code · Matt Fleming <hidden> · 2014-07-01
[PATCH v2 1/2] efi/x86: move UEFI Runtime Services wrappers to generic code · Ard Biesheuvel <hidden> · 2014-07-01
[PATCH v2 1/2] efi/x86: move UEFI Runtime Services wrappers to generic code · Matt Fleming <hidden> · 2014-07-01
[PATCH v2 2/2] efi/arm64: preserve FP/SIMD registers on UEFI runtime services calls · Ard Biesheuvel <hidden> · 2014-06-26
[PATCH v2 2/2] efi/arm64: preserve FP/SIMD registers on UEFI runtime services calls · catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) · 2014-07-04
[PATCH v2 2/2] efi/arm64: preserve FP/SIMD registers on UEFI runtime services calls · Ard Biesheuvel <hidden> · 2014-07-04
[PATCH v2 2/2] efi/arm64: preserve FP/SIMD registers on UEFI runtime services calls · catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) · 2014-07-04
[PATCH v2 2/2] efi/arm64: preserve FP/SIMD registers on UEFI runtime services calls · Ard Biesheuvel <hidden> · 2014-07-04
[PATCH v2 0/2] efi: preserve NEON registers on UEFI services calls · Mark Salter <hidden> · 2014-06-26
[PATCH v2 0/2] efi: preserve NEON registers on UEFI services calls · Ard Biesheuvel <hidden> · 2014-06-26
[PATCH v2 0/2] efi: preserve NEON registers on UEFI services calls · Matt Fleming <hidden> · 2014-07-01
[PATCH v2 0/2] efi: preserve NEON registers on UEFI services calls · Ard Biesheuvel <hidden> · 2014-07-01
RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] efi: preserve NEON registers on UEFI services calls · Olivier Martin <hidden> · 2014-07-08

From: Mark Salter <hidden>
Date: 2014-06-26 13:58:07
Also in: linux-arm-kernel

On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 12:09 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

The current UEFI implementation for arm64 fails to preserve/restore the contents
of the NEON register file,

Does the current implementation actually use NEON registers?
I know there are some at least, which build with -mgeneral-regs-only
to keep gcc from using NEON registers.

Not that that means we don't need this. Just curious.

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help