From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Olof Johansson In-Reply-To: <20050204183514.GB17586@austin.ibm.com> References: <20050204072254.GA17565@austin.ibm.com> <200502041336.59892.arnd@arndb.de> <20050204183514.GB17586@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:50:44 +1100 Message-Id: <1107561044.2189.120.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Andrew Morton , Tom Rini , Arnd Bergmann , Linux Kernel list , linuxppc-dev list , Paul Mackerras , "H. Peter Anvin" , linuxppc64-dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC/PPC64: Introduce CPU_HAS_FEATURE() macro List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 12:35 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 01:36:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I have a somewhat similar patch that does the same to the > > systemcfg->platform checks. I'm not sure if we should use the same inline > > function for both checks, but I do think that they should be used in a > > similar way, e.g. CPU_HAS_FEATURE(x) and PLATFORM_HAS_FEATURE(x). > > Yep. Firmware features are also on the list. I figured I'd do CPU features > first though since they are the ones that started bugging me. > > > The same stuff is obviously possible for cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features as well. > > Do you think that it will help there? > > Nice. It won't be quite as easy to do compile-time for cpu features. > pSeries will need all cpus enabled since we have them all on various > machines, etc. I guess Powermac/Maple could benefit from it. In the > end it depends on how hairy the implementation would get vs performance > improvement. One other thing we did on ppc32 was to have separate ELF sections for pmac, chrp and prep specific code & get rid of them after boot... It may be worth bringing this back in... Ben.