[PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support

[PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support

[James Hogan]

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.

Signed-off-by: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
---
 arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h  | 1 +
 arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c | 4 ++++
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
index 76411df3d971..b69e7306cdb1 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@
 #define PRID_IMP_INTERAPTIV_MP	0xa100
 #define PRID_IMP_PROAPTIV_UP	0xa200
 #define PRID_IMP_PROAPTIV_MP	0xa300
+#define PRID_IMP_P5600		0xa800
 
 /*
  * These are the PRID's for when 23:16 == PRID_COMP_SIBYTE
diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c b/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
index 530f832de02c..7bf4634ff045 100644
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
@@ -825,6 +825,10 @@ static inline void cpu_probe_mips(struct cpuinfo_mips *c, unsigned int cpu)
 		c->cputype = CPU_PROAPTIV;
 		__cpu_name[cpu] = "MIPS proAptiv (multi)";
 		break;
+	case PRID_IMP_P5600:
+		c->cputype = CPU_PROAPTIV;
+		__cpu_name[cpu] = "MIPS P5600";
+		break;
 	}
 
 	decode_configs(c);
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support

[James Hogan]

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.

Signed-off-by: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
---
 arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h  | 1 +
 arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c | 4 ++++
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
index 76411df3d971..b69e7306cdb1 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@
 #define PRID_IMP_INTERAPTIV_MP	0xa100
 #define PRID_IMP_PROAPTIV_UP	0xa200
 #define PRID_IMP_PROAPTIV_MP	0xa300
+#define PRID_IMP_P5600		0xa800
 
 /*
  * These are the PRID's for when 23:16 == PRID_COMP_SIBYTE
diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c b/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
index 530f832de02c..7bf4634ff045 100644
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
@@ -825,6 +825,10 @@ static inline void cpu_probe_mips(struct cpuinfo_mips *c, unsigned int cpu)
 		c->cputype = CPU_PROAPTIV;
 		__cpu_name[cpu] = "MIPS proAptiv (multi)";
 		break;
+	case PRID_IMP_P5600:
+		c->cputype = CPU_PROAPTIV;
+		__cpu_name[cpu] = "MIPS P5600";
+		break;
 	}
 
 	decode_configs(c);
-- 
1.8.1.2

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support

[John Crispin]

Hi,

> 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 ?
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.

     John




> Signed-off-by: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
> Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
> Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
> ---
>  arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h  | 1 +
>  arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c | 4 ++++
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
> index 76411df3d971..b69e7306cdb1 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/cpu.h
> @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@
>  #define PRID_IMP_INTERAPTIV_MP	0xa100
>  #define PRID_IMP_PROAPTIV_UP	0xa200
>  #define PRID_IMP_PROAPTIV_MP	0xa300
> +#define PRID_IMP_P5600		0xa800
>  
>  /*
>   * These are the PRID's for when 23:16 == PRID_COMP_SIBYTE
> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c b/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> index 530f832de02c..7bf4634ff045 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
> @@ -825,6 +825,10 @@ static inline void cpu_probe_mips(struct cpuinfo_mips *c, unsigned int cpu)
>  		c->cputype = CPU_PROAPTIV;
>  		__cpu_name[cpu] = "MIPS proAptiv (multi)";
>  		break;
> +	case PRID_IMP_P5600:
> +		c->cputype = CPU_PROAPTIV;
> +		__cpu_name[cpu] = "MIPS P5600";
> +		break;
>  	}
>  
>  	decode_configs(c);

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support

[James Hogan]

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

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support

[James Hogan]

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