On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 01:36 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > >>> #define CPU_FTRS_E200 (CPU_FTR_USE_TB | CPU_FTR_SPE_COMP | \ >>> CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN | CPU_FTR_COHERENT_ICACHE | \ >>> - CPU_FTR_UNIFIED_ID_CACHE) >>> + CPU_FTR_UNIFIED_ID_CACHE | CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE) >>> #define CPU_FTRS_E500 (CPU_FTR_MAYBE_CAN_DOZE | CPU_FTR_USE_TB | \ >>> - CPU_FTR_SPE_COMP | CPU_FTR_MAYBE_CAN_NAP | CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN) >>> + CPU_FTR_SPE_COMP | CPU_FTR_MAYBE_CAN_NAP | >>> CPU_FTR_NODSISRALIGN \ >> >> Added a '|' at the end of the line before the escape > > Right. Will send a new patch tomorrow. Appart from that, have you > verified it doesn't have any adverse effects for you ? I did some quick > tests on 440 and things seem to be fine.
#ifdef __powerpc64__ #define LONG_ASM_CONST(x) ASM_CONST(x) #else #define LONG_ASM_CONST(x) 0 #endif #define CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE LONG_ASM_CONST(0x0000000800000000) Am I not looking at the right code? Since e200 and e500 aren't powerpc64, doesn't adding CPU_FTR_NOEXECUTE have no effect at all? _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
