[v5] pc-bios: s390x: Cleanup part 1

[PATCH v5 06/12] pc-bios: s390x: Rename PSW_MASK_ZMODE to PSW_MASK_64

Posted by Janosch Frank 5 years, 7 months ago

This constant enables 64 bit addressing, not the ESAME architecture,
so it shouldn't be named ZMODE.

Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
---
 pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h
index 5f36361c02..73852029d4 100644
--- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h
+++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ _Static_assert(sizeof(struct PSWLegacy) == 8, "PSWLegacy size incorrect");
 #define PSW_MASK_WAIT       0x0002000000000000ULL
 #define PSW_MASK_EAMODE     0x0000000100000000ULL
 #define PSW_MASK_BAMODE     0x0000000080000000ULL
-#define PSW_MASK_ZMODE      (PSW_MASK_EAMODE | PSW_MASK_BAMODE)
+#define PSW_MASK_64         (PSW_MASK_EAMODE | PSW_MASK_BAMODE)
 
 /* Low core mapping */
 typedef struct LowCore {
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH v5 06/12] pc-bios: s390x: Rename PSW_MASK_ZMODE to PSW_MASK_64

Posted by Thomas Huth 5 years, 7 months ago

On 24/06/2020 09.52, Janosch Frank wrote:
> This constant enables 64 bit addressing, not the ESAME architecture,
> so it shouldn't be named ZMODE.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h
> index 5f36361c02..73852029d4 100644
> --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h
> +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/s390-arch.h
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ _Static_assert(sizeof(struct PSWLegacy) == 8, "PSWLegacy size incorrect");
>   #define PSW_MASK_WAIT       0x0002000000000000ULL
>   #define PSW_MASK_EAMODE     0x0000000100000000ULL
>   #define PSW_MASK_BAMODE     0x0000000080000000ULL
> -#define PSW_MASK_ZMODE      (PSW_MASK_EAMODE | PSW_MASK_BAMODE)
> +#define PSW_MASK_64         (PSW_MASK_EAMODE | PSW_MASK_BAMODE)

I think you could maybe squash it with the next patch.

Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>