From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e31.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B86DDF74 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 05:55:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3CJtf2J027615 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:55:41 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l3CJteDQ202160 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:55:40 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l3CJtduD001546 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:55:40 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: Fix PowerPC 750CL and 750GX CPU features From: Josh Boyer To: Segher Boessenkool In-Reply-To: <3d8deaa26ab67ccd0aeb4b827dc175a8@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1176402805.6379.84.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <3d8deaa26ab67ccd0aeb4b827dc175a8@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:54:33 -0500 Message-Id: <1176407673.6379.95.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 21:28 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > PowerPC 750CL has high BATs. The patch below adds a CPU_FTRS_750CL > > that > > includes that. Without it, the original firmware mappings in the high > > BATs > > aren't cleared which continue to override the linux translations. > > > > It also adds CPU_FTR_COMMON to CPU_FTRS_750GX for completeness. > > Looks good to me, thanks Josh. It would be nice to define > the 750XX features as plain 750 + a few options, but that's > a separate cleanup. Yep, I was thinking a cleanup along those lines would be good. I'd like to get this current patch merged first, and then I can do that cleanup. Didn't want to fight with patch dependency ordering for now (which is also why I rolled the small GX fix into this patch). josh