On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:05:42 +1000
David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:01:17AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > >> + { /* 440EPX - without Security/Kasumi */
> > >> + .pvr_mask = 0xf0000fff,
> > >> + .pvr_value = 0x200008D4,
> > >> + .cpu_name = "440EPX - no Security/Kasumi",
> > >> + .cpu_features = CPU_FTRS_44X,
> > >> + .cpu_user_features = COMMON_USER_BOOKE |
> > >> PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU, /*
> > >> 440EPX has an FPU */
> > >> + .icache_bsize = 32,
> > >> + .dcache_bsize = 32,
> > >> + },
> > >
> > > Since the with/without Security/Kasumi versions have no differences in
> > > their cputable entry other than the PVR, couldn't you just remove the
> > > relevant PVR bit from the mask and use a single entry?
> >
> > And get rid of the stupid "has an FPU" comment at the same time
> > please :-)
>
> Actually that comment may be worthwhile if expanded a little. I think
> the point is that 440EPx *unlike most other 4xx chips* has an FPU. So
> the point of the comment is not explaining the feature bit, which is
> obvious, but as a "no, really, it does".
Right. 440EP(x) are the only currently available 44x chips that
contain an FPU, so I also think the comment can stay.
josh
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
