On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:36:39AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Freedag 09 September 2005 00:02, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 8, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Dan Malek wrote:
> > >
> > > If we #define CPU_FTR_xxx as a 0 or all 1's for processors that have
> > > or don't have these features, will the compiler be smart enough to
> > > recognize an always true or false condition and remove the
> > > test (or code as appropriate)?
> >
> > The compiler is smart enough in this case since cpu_has_feature() is
> > an inline function.
>
> I actually wrote a patch that solves the problem in a very generic way,
> see http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=1048 .
> I don't remember exactly if there were serious objections against
> the patch at that time, but it looks like a much cleaner solution to me
> than defining CPU_FTR_xxx to different values depending on the
> configuration.
And we already use a mechanism essentially identical to Arnd's for
fw_has_feature().
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson
