All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
To: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
Cc: <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:13:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52DEAAA0.5060801@imgtec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52DEA5D9.2000904@phrozen.org>

Hi John,

On 21/01/14 16:52, John Crispin wrote:
>> Add a Processor ID for the P5600 core and a case in cpu_probe_mips() for
>> it. The cputype is set to CPU_PROAPTIV for now as it is in the same
>> range of cores as proAptiv and doesn't currently need to be
>> distinguished from it in the kernel.
> The "currently" in that sentence tells me that you expect there to be a
> need to distinguish it in future ?

More an "I don't know at this stage whether there'll be a need to
distinguish them in future". Even glancing at perf counters they look
the same (but I haven't checked every one).

> If this is the case, then the code should be added now rather than
> correcting the code later.
> I immediately had to think of the 1074k vs 74k patch that is in
> linux-mti-3.10 and was posted a few days ago.

Okay, fair enough, It does no real harm to re-do with a different CPU id.

Thanks
James

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
To: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:13:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52DEAAA0.5060801@imgtec.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20140121171304.yg8l_zZ1smJ9zBbEkxoBTkadY4oTuUoebZ8PzK_MqqE@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52DEA5D9.2000904@phrozen.org>

Hi John,

On 21/01/14 16:52, John Crispin wrote:
>> Add a Processor ID for the P5600 core and a case in cpu_probe_mips() for
>> it. The cputype is set to CPU_PROAPTIV for now as it is in the same
>> range of cores as proAptiv and doesn't currently need to be
>> distinguished from it in the kernel.
> The "currently" in that sentence tells me that you expect there to be a
> need to distinguish it in future ?

More an "I don't know at this stage whether there'll be a need to
distinguish them in future". Even glancing at perf counters they look
the same (but I haven't checked every one).

> If this is the case, then the code should be added now rather than
> correcting the code later.
> I immediately had to think of the 1074k vs 74k patch that is in
> linux-mti-3.10 and was posted a few days ago.

Okay, fair enough, It does no real harm to re-do with a different CPU id.

Thanks
James

  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-21 17:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-21 14:50 [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support James Hogan
2014-01-21 14:50 ` James Hogan
2014-01-21 16:52 ` John Crispin
2014-01-21 17:13   ` James Hogan [this message]
2014-01-21 17:13     ` James Hogan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=52DEAAA0.5060801@imgtec.com \
    --to=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
    --cc=john@phrozen.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.