Re: [PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-27 Thread Martin Langer
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:32:25PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: Martin Langer writes: Care to resend this with a proper description and a Signed-off-by line? Sure. + switch (PVR_VER(pvr)) { + case 0x8000:/* 7441/7450/7451, Vger */ +

Re: [PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-26 Thread Paul Mackerras
Martin Langer writes: Thanks for the hint. Inspired by that I did the logic the other way round. So we have the same default cases as we had before and additionally it will fit for the cores mentioned in the doc. Care to resend this with a proper description and a Signed-off-by line? +

Re: [PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-11 Thread Martin Langer
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:01:03AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: On Feb 9, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Martin Langer wrote: Ppc cores by Freescale are using the configuration field instead of the major revision field for their major revision number. Those field definitions come from

Re: [PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-11 Thread Kumar Gala
On Feb 9, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Martin Langer wrote: Ppc cores by Freescale are using the configuration field instead of the major revision field for their major revision number. Those field definitions come from include/asm-powerpc/reg.h. Look at the pdf below and you will see that

[PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-09 Thread Martin Langer
Ppc cores by Freescale are using the configuration field instead of the major revision field for their major revision number. Those field definitions come from include/asm-powerpc/reg.h. Look at the pdf below and you will see that PVR_MAJ() does a wrong shift for ppc cores by Freescale. This