From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dave.martin@linaro.org (Dave Martin) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:43:11 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: thumb: Have the machine name indicate operation in thumb mode. In-Reply-To: References: <20110513195316.9AD0940CD1@eskimo.mtv.corp.google.com> <20110514100232.GC30539@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110516121657.GA7715@arm.com> Message-ID: <20110516144311.GC7715@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:32:16AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2011, Dave Martin wrote: > > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:02:32AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:59:14AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On 13 May 2011 20:53, Vadim Bendebury wrote: > > > > > This is a cosmetic change, adding a '_thumb' prefix to the > > > > > 'Hardware' line in /proc/cpuinfo. Tested as follows: > > > > > > > > > > localhost ~ # dmesg | grep thumb > > > > > [ ? ?0.000000] Machine: kaen_thumb > > > > > localhost ~ # grep '^Hardware' /proc/cpuinfo > > > > > Hardware ? ? ? ?: kaen_thumb > > > > > localhost ~ # > > > > > > > > Would this break any script parsing this file? > > > > > > > > BTW, why do you need it? You could include the .config into the kernel > > > > and read it via /proc. > > > > > > Whether the kernel is built T2 or ARM doesn't change the userland API > > > either, so there's no real need for userland to know how the kernel > > > was built. > > > > > > The only thing which is affected by it are kernel modules, but then we > > > have an established way to sort out incompatible kernel modules already. > > > > One corollary to that is that _if_ there's any reason why userland needs to > > know what instruction set the kernel was built with, then we're probably > > doing something wrong somewhere... > > > > In any case, shoehorning this information into the hardware platform name > > seems a bit strange since this is really nothing to do with the hardware. > > > > Vadim, can you explain why you think this information is needed? If the > > need is real, perhaps there's a better way to address it. > > I think this can be useful to know how the kernel was compiled for bug > tracking purposes, just like we record the Git commit ID of the checked > out source tree, the gcc version, the build date, etc. Which pretty > much indicates that the thumbness of the kernel should probably be > stored in the kernel banner not the platform name. That seems a reasonable approach to me. ---Dave