From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dave.martin@linaro.org (Dave Martin)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:53:08 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] arm: Add Cortex A5 proc_info
In-Reply-To: <1305712038.17656.41.camel@hornet.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1305650956-20997-1-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com>
	<1305712038.17656.41.camel@hornet.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <20110518105308.GA2544@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:47:18AM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
> > +	.long	0x410fc050		@ Required ID value
> > +	.long	0xff0ffff0		@ Mask for ID
> 
> Alternatively I could "reuse" current A9 proc_info and change ID value
> and mask to:
> 
> 0x410fc010
> 0xff0fff30
> 
> This would:
> 
> * match Cortex A5 (part no. 0xc05) and A9 (0xc09)
> 
> * not match A8 (0xc08) and A15 (0xc0f)
> 
> Everything is fine so far, but also:
> 
> * match part no. 0xc01 and 0xc0d
> 
> Obviously no parts like that exist today, but somehow this "solution"
> doesn't appeal to me... Of course it would save 39 lines in diff
> stat ;-)

If we're worried about the ambiguity/duplication, maybe the proc_info
structure format could be extended to allow multiple match specifications,
or a level of indirection could be introduced.

Dunno whether it's worth it though.  It partly depends on how often we
expect this kind of duplication to occur.


The simplest solution might be to use a macro to avoid duplication in
the source.  This would still create diffstat noise, but it's not
actually fragmentary, so it may be considered OK.

See what other people think, I guess.

---Dave