From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6NDwvRw026914 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 06:58:57 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.3/Submit) id g6NDwvmP026913 for linux-mips-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 06:58:57 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from dea.linux-mips.net (shaft17-f249.dialo.tiscali.de [62.246.17.249]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g6NDwlRw026902 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 06:58:48 -0700 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6NDxZI24818; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:59:35 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:59:35 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [patch] linux: cpu_probe(): remove 32-bit CPU bits for MIPS64 Message-ID: <20020723155935.A22195@dea.linux-mips.net> References: <20020723152300.A14474@dea.linux-mips.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl on Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:31:30PM +0200 X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 03:31:30PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > You've been a little bit too fast :) I've almost implemented my suggestion > > of moving the probing code into cpu-probe.c. > > What's the problem? Now the branch and the trunk are in sync (I just did > a `cp' from the trunk as the missing function was the only difference), so > you may apply the same changes to both. :-) Otherwise you'd have to deal > with the difference. No real toy, just a merge conflict. Doing this cleanup I also noticed that the 2.4 and 2.5 cpu probing code is out of sync, so I took care of that as well. Any future clean and fix should new be easier as the merge between 32-bit and 64-bit, 2.4 and 2.5 can simply be done using cp. Modern technology rules :) > > > That might be a good idea in principle, but it won't solve the problem > > > anyway. I'd like to see the code for 32-bit processors get annihilated by > > > the compiler if built for mips64. I'll look at it soon. The MIPS32/64 > > > crap needs to be fixed here as well. > > > > If you find a nice way of implementing this I certainly won't object. > > The MIPS32/64 fix is obvious; the 32-bit CPU is not so, but I have a sort > of an idea. I'd like to get rid of all ifdefs in the area. Not a high > priority, though, sorry. I was refering to the less obvious part, obviously ;-) Ralf