On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:55:25 -0600 Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:45 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > I think it added isel support. I'm not entirely sure about that, but I'll check. 440x4 cores lack isel, 440x5, 440x6 have it. I don't think it was tied to the 'A' moniker. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
