From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:32:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from p508B74BA.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.116.186]:29336 "EHLO dea.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:32:07 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3FFJJE09957; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:19:19 +0200 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:19:19 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Atsushi Nemoto Cc: nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: End c-tx49.c's misserable existence Message-ID: <20030415171919.A9902@linux-mips.org> References: <20030414055038.A29923@linux-mips.org> <20030414.152903.41628304.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <20030414174825.A9808@linux-mips.org> <20030416.001509.59462441.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030416.001509.59462441.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>; from anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp on Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:15:09AM +0900 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 2061 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:15:09AM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:15:09 +0900 (JST) > To: ralf@linux-mips.org > Cc: nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp, linux-mips@linux-mips.org > Subject: Re: End c-tx49.c's misserable existence > From: Atsushi Nemoto > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii > > >>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:48:25 +0200, Ralf Baechle said: > > >> One more request. Please enclose R4600_V1_HIT_CACHEOP_WAR and > >> R4600_V2_HIT_CACHEOP_WAR with appropriate CONFIG_CPU_XXX. I do not > >> know what CPUs need this workaround... (at least TX49 does not need > >> this) > > ralf> I'll leave it unconditionally enabled for now because the > ralf> Makefiles could behave in undefined ways if multiple > ralf> CONFIG_CPU_* options are selected and quite a few systems > ralf> support both the R4600 and other processors like the Indy. > ralf> Another day. > > I have been misunderstood that people who needs the workaround always > select CONFIG_CPU_R4X00. But it is not true. Now I understand. > > But recent reorganization increased a number of c-r4k.c users > somewhat. How about introducing new config macros such as > CONFIG_R4600_V1_WORKAROUNDS ? That's all part of the Great Plan. For now you can control many of the workarounds in . Ralf