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. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
