On 2026-08-04 11:50:45 Tue, Amit Machhiwal wrote: > On 2026/08/04 11:30 AM, Mahesh J Salgaonkar wrote: > > On 2026-08-04 00:47:49 Tue, Amit Machhiwal wrote: > > > On 2026/08/03 09:27 PM, Mahesh Salgaonkar wrote: > > > > From: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > PVR value of 0x0f000008 means we are arch v3.2 compliant (i.e. > > > > Power12). This is used by phyp and kvm when booting as a pseries guest > > > > to detect the presence of new Power12 features and to enable the > > > > appropriate hwcap and facility bits. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mahesh Salgaonkar <[email protected]> > > > > Tested-by: Praveen K Pandey <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Nikhil Kumar Singh <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h | 1 + > > > > arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/cputable.h | 1 + > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/cpu_specs_book3s_64.h | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h > > > > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h > > > > index f4991d10d89ec..cd025c7225ee7 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h > > > > @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ extern unsigned int boot_cpu_node_count; > > > > > > > > #define OV1_PPC_3_00 0x80 /* set if we support PowerPC > > > > 3.00 */ > > > > #define OV1_PPC_3_1 0x40 /* set if we support > > > > PowerPC 3.1 */ > > > > +#define OV1_PPC_3_2 0x20 /* set if we support > > > > PowerPC 3.2 */ > > > > > > Minor: OV1_PPC_3_1 and OV1_PPC_3_2 use extra tabs relative to > > > OV1_PPC_3_00. > > > This is pre-existing style inconsistency in the file (not introduced by > > > this patch) but new additions should match the surrounding code. Please > > > consider aligning them. > > > > This is bit tricky. Prior to 3.0 the ISA versions were 2.05, 2.06, 2.07 > > and so on and pre-existing style did make sense. But it looks like from > > 3.1 the style changed may be for a reason because it can not be written > > as 3.10 which may create more confusiton. Hence, I plan to stick with > > the new style which is introduced from 3.1. > > If the extra tab is intentional to maintain visual alignment for the 3.x > series names, then it make sense. Please feel free to add:
Ouch I missed that. thanks for the catch. Fixing it in v3 > > Reviewed-by: Amit Machhiwal <[email protected]> Thanks for your review. -Mahesh. > > Thanks, > Amit > > -- Mahesh J Salgaonkar
