From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "Microsoft Secure Server Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19CA12C008E for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:41:00 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:40:46 -0500 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: Probing for native availability of isel from userspace To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt References: <1348530909.25867.29@snotra> <1348533123.1132.102.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1348533123.1132.102.camel@pasglop> (from benh@kernel.crashing.org on Mon Sep 24 19:32:03 2012) Message-ID: <1348533646.25867.33@snotra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; delsp=Yes; format=Flowed Cc: malc , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, hollis@penguinppc.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/24/2012 07:32:03 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:55 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > The ISA says that isel is "Category: Phased-In (sV2.06)" -- are =20 > there > > any 2.06 chips that don't have it? >=20 > I believe "malc" is interested in knowing about pre-2.06 chips that =20 > have > it. You said to key off of 2.06 plus a PVR whitelist for pre-2.06 chips =20 that have it. Wouldn't you also need a PVR blacklist for 2.06 chips =20 that don't have it (unless there are no such things)? Or if one is =20 only interested in pre-2.06 chips, why check for 2.06 at all? -Scott=