Linux MIPS Architecture development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
To: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
Cc: <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:13:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52DEAAA0.5060801@imgtec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52DEA5D9.2000904@phrozen.org>

Hi John,

On 21/01/14 16:52, John Crispin wrote:
>> Add a Processor ID for the P5600 core and a case in cpu_probe_mips() for
>> it. The cputype is set to CPU_PROAPTIV for now as it is in the same
>> range of cores as proAptiv and doesn't currently need to be
>> distinguished from it in the kernel.
> The "currently" in that sentence tells me that you expect there to be a
> need to distinguish it in future ?

More an "I don't know at this stage whether there'll be a need to
distinguish them in future". Even glancing at perf counters they look
the same (but I haven't checked every one).

> If this is the case, then the code should be added now rather than
> correcting the code later.
> I immediately had to think of the 1074k vs 74k patch that is in
> linux-mti-3.10 and was posted a few days ago.

Okay, fair enough, It does no real harm to re-do with a different CPU id.

Thanks
James

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>
To: John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:13:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52DEAAA0.5060801@imgtec.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20140121171304.yg8l_zZ1smJ9zBbEkxoBTkadY4oTuUoebZ8PzK_MqqE@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52DEA5D9.2000904@phrozen.org>

Hi John,

On 21/01/14 16:52, John Crispin wrote:
>> Add a Processor ID for the P5600 core and a case in cpu_probe_mips() for
>> it. The cputype is set to CPU_PROAPTIV for now as it is in the same
>> range of cores as proAptiv and doesn't currently need to be
>> distinguished from it in the kernel.
> The "currently" in that sentence tells me that you expect there to be a
> need to distinguish it in future ?

More an "I don't know at this stage whether there'll be a need to
distinguish them in future". Even glancing at perf counters they look
the same (but I haven't checked every one).

> If this is the case, then the code should be added now rather than
> correcting the code later.
> I immediately had to think of the 1074k vs 74k patch that is in
> linux-mti-3.10 and was posted a few days ago.

Okay, fair enough, It does no real harm to re-do with a different CPU id.

Thanks
James

  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-21 17:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-21 14:50 [PATCH] MIPS: Add P5600 PRid and probe support James Hogan
2014-01-21 14:50 ` James Hogan
2014-01-21 16:52 ` John Crispin
2014-01-21 17:13   ` James Hogan [this message]
2014-01-21 17:13     ` James Hogan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=52DEAAA0.5060801@imgtec.com \
    --to=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
    --cc=john@phrozen.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox