[RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[Kumar Gala]

I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform.  Posting this to
see if anyone thinks otherwise.

- k

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
index 6b59e40..4237aea 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
@@ -1119,7 +1119,7 @@ static struct cpu_spec cpu_specs[] = {
 		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_BOOKE,
 		.icache_bsize		= 32,
 		.dcache_bsize		= 32,
-		.platform		= "ppc440gp",
+		.platform		= "ppc440",
 	},
 	{	/* 440GP Rev. C */
 		.pvr_mask		= 0xf0000fff,
@@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static struct cpu_spec cpu_specs[] = {
 		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_BOOKE,
 		.icache_bsize		= 32,
 		.dcache_bsize		= 32,
-		.platform		= "ppc440gp",
+		.platform		= "ppc440",
 	},
 	{ /* 440GX Rev. A */
 		.pvr_mask		= 0xf0000fff,

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 16:16 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform.  Posting this to
> see if anyone thinks otherwise.

Seems fine to me.

josh

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[David Gibson]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:43:26PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 16:16 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform.  Posting this to
> > see if anyone thinks otherwise.
> 
> Seems fine to me.

Likewise to me.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[Paul Mackerras]

Kumar Gala writes:

> I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform.  Posting this to
> see if anyone thinks otherwise.

I recall dimly that there was some user-visible difference between the
440GP and the other 440 processors, and that's why we made the
platform string different.  I don't recall what the difference was.

Paul.

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[Kumar Gala]

On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> Kumar Gala writes:
>
>> I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform.  Posting  
>> this to
>> see if anyone thinks otherwise.
>
> I recall dimly that there was some user-visible difference between the
> 440GP and the other 440 processors, and that's why we made the
> platform string different.  I don't recall what the difference was.

The 440GP seems to be a book-e userspace w/o FP.  Not sure how it  
differs from other 440's.  It seems like the 440EP are the only ones  
with FPUs.

- k

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:58:57PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 
> > Kumar Gala writes:
> >
> >> I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform.  Posting  
> >> this to
> >> see if anyone thinks otherwise.
> >
> > I recall dimly that there was some user-visible difference between the
> > 440GP and the other 440 processors, and that's why we made the
> > platform string different.  I don't recall what the difference was.
> 
> The 440GP seems to be a book-e userspace w/o FP.  Not sure how it  
> differs from other 440's.  It seems like the 440EP are the only ones  
> with FPUs.

Right.  I don't recall ever distinguishing 440GP from any other 440 chip
without an FPU.

josh

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[Roland Dreier]

> > I recall dimly that there was some user-visible difference between the
> > 440GP and the other 440 processors, and that's why we made the
> > platform string different.  I don't recall what the difference was.

FWIW, I've run the same userspace (binaries) on 405GPr, 440GP and
440SPe without any problems.  Not that I'm a 4xx expert by any
stretch, but I don't know of anything special about the 440GP.

 - R.

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[Stefan Roese]

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 02:12, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > I recall dimly that there was some user-visible difference between the
> > > 440GP and the other 440 processors, and that's why we made the
> > > platform string different.  I don't recall what the difference was.
>
> FWIW, I've run the same userspace (binaries) on 405GPr, 440GP and
> 440SPe without any problems.  Not that I'm a 4xx expert by any
> stretch, but I don't know of anything special about the 440GP.

I don't know of any differences either. So I'm voting to change the platform 
to ppc440 too.

Best regards,
Stefan

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440

[Kumar Gala]

On Apr 24, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:

> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 02:12, Roland Dreier wrote:
>>>> I recall dimly that there was some user-visible difference  
>>>> between the
>>>> 440GP and the other 440 processors, and that's why we made the
>>>> platform string different.  I don't recall what the difference was.
>>
>> FWIW, I've run the same userspace (binaries) on 405GPr, 440GP and
>> 440SPe without any problems.  Not that I'm a 4xx expert by any
>> stretch, but I don't know of anything special about the 440GP.
>
> I don't know of any differences either. So I'm voting to change the  
> platform
> to ppc440 too.

After some discussion with Paul we think we figured out why 440GP was  
marked differently.  I doesn't implement 'isel', and all other 440's do.

- k

What defines a cpu table platform? (was Re: Change 440GP platform to ppc440)

[Kumar Gala]

On May 1, 2007, at 10:38 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

>
> On Apr 24, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 02:12, Roland Dreier wrote:
>>>>> I recall dimly that there was some user-visible difference
>>>>> between the
>>>>> 440GP and the other 440 processors, and that's why we made the
>>>>> platform string different.  I don't recall what the difference  
>>>>> was.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I've run the same userspace (binaries) on 405GPr, 440GP and
>>> 440SPe without any problems.  Not that I'm a 4xx expert by any
>>> stretch, but I don't know of anything special about the 440GP.
>>
>> I don't know of any differences either. So I'm voting to change the
>> platform
>> to ppc440 too.
>
> After some discussion with Paul we think we figured out why 440GP was
> marked differently.  I doesn't implement 'isel', and all other  
> 440's do.

This whole discussion makes me wondering what defines a new cpu table  
platform?  I know one application of this value is for being able to  
pick "platform" specific/tuned libraries.  Are there other uses?

If its just for libraries wouldn't the existence of FPUs and SPE/ 
Altivec warrant different platform types?

- k