Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 28/10/16 17:39, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>
>> I've tested this but I would appreciate if someone can verify I didn't typo
>> anything when transcribing it.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> index b0245bed6f54..a7b87b6b4ef4 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> @@ -156,21 +156,22 @@ static struct ibm_pa_feature {
>> unsigned char pabit; /* bit number (big-endian) */
>> unsigned char invert; /* if 1, pa bit set => clear feature */
>> } ibm_pa_features[] __initdata = {
>> - {0, 0, PPC_FEATURE_HAS_MMU, 0, 0, 0, 0},
>> - {0, 0, PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU, 0, 0, 1, 0},
>> - {CPU_FTR_CTRL, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0},
>> - {CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0},
>> - {CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1},
>> - {0, MMU_FTR_CI_LARGE_PAGE, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0},
>> - {CPU_FTR_REAL_LE, 0, PPC_FEATURE_TRUE_LE, 0, 5, 0, 0},
>> + { .pabyte = 0, .pabit = 0, .cpu_user_ftrs = PPC_FEATURE_HAS_MMU },
>> + { .pabyte = 0, .pabit = 1, .cpu_user_ftrs = PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU },
>> + { .pabyte = 0, .pabit = 3, .cpu_features = CPU_FTR_CTRL },
>> + { .pabyte = 0, .pabit = 6, .cpu_features = CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE },
>> + { .pabyte = 1, .pabit = 2, .mmu_features = MMU_FTR_CI_LARGE_PAGE },
>> + { .pabyte = 40, .pabit = 0, .mmu_features = MMU_FTR_TYPE_RADIX },
>> + { .pabyte = 1, .pabit = 1, .invert = 1, .cpu_features =
>> CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN },
>> + { .pabyte = 5, .pabit = 0, .cpu_features = CPU_FTR_REAL_LE,
>> + .cpu_user_ftrs = PPC_FEATURE_TRUE_LE },
>> /*
>> * If the kernel doesn't support TM (ie CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM=n),
>> * we don't want to turn on TM here, so we use the *_COMP versions
>> * which are 0 if the kernel doesn't support TM.
>> */
>> - {CPU_FTR_TM_COMP, 0, 0,
>> - PPC_FEATURE2_HTM_COMP|PPC_FEATURE2_HTM_NOSC_COMP, 22, 0, 0},
>> - {0, MMU_FTR_TYPE_RADIX, 0, 0, 40, 0, 0},
>> + { .pabyte = 22, .pabit = 0, .cpu_features = CPU_FTR_TM_COMP,
>> + .cpu_user_ftrs2 = PPC_FEATURE2_HTM_COMP | PPC_FEATURE2_HTM_NOSC_COMP
>> },
>> };
>>
>
> The code looks easier to parse with this
I know, but did you check I didn't make a typo :)
cheers
