From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:46:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk ([81.2.74.5]:33556 "EHLO h5.dl5rb.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1491816AbZGASqI (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:46:08 +0200 Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n61IeRsC024347; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:40:27 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n61IeRiE024346; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:40:27 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:40:27 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: David Daney , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Define __arch_swab64 for all mips r2 cpus (v2). Message-ID: <20090701184027.GC23121@linux-mips.org> References: <1246294455-26866-1-git-send-email-ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> <20090629193454.GA23430@linux-mips.org> <4A4AB845.1030906@caviumnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 23583 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 02:36:31AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > The problem with CPU_MIPS64_R2 in the kernel is that it means two unrelated > > things: > > > > 1) The cpu can execute all mips64r2 ISA instructions. > > > > 2) The cpu requires that all worse case cache and execution hazards are > > handled. > > > > In the case of the Octeon processors, #1 is true, but we can get better > > performance by omitting many of the hazard barriers because they are unneeded. > > Which is why I think a split of the semantics would be a good idea. That's the idea since a long time. There are far less uses of CONFIG_CPU_* than there used to be historically - and usually they're a bug or at least should be considered one. Ralf