On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 18:41 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 01:40 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > > I'm not sure I like this. It introduces another cpu feature flag, > > that we'll soon run out of if it's used to signify version info per > > implementation like this. > > > > 1) The SET_IVOR could be done from the cpu_setups for 440A instead > > (i.e. introduce one). > > > > 2) Please just move the machine check handlers out to individual ones > > instead of using the generic one. That way you don't need runtime checks > > between the two (they don't seem to share much of it as-is anyway). > > > > With the above two changes, you shouldn't need the feature bit any more. > > We can easily make the cpu features bigger ... But ok, I'll have a look > at doing it the way you suggest.
Note that first, I'd like to figure out if there are other relevant differences with 440A ... arch/ppc didn't list any and diff'ing PDFs is not fun but if people around here know, please speak up Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
