From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75917DDF53 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:28:43 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix PowerPC 750CL CPU features From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Segher Boessenkool In-Reply-To: References: <1176382146.6379.28.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:28:30 +1000 Message-Id: <1176431310.5764.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > The difference between these two is > > #define CPU_FTRS_750GX (CPU_FTR_DUAL_PLL_750FX | CPU_FTR_HAS_HIGH_BATS) > #define CPU_FTRS_750 (CPU_FTR_COMMON) > > 750GX excludes COMMON, which seems like a bug. With > your change, 750CL uses DUAL_PLL_750FX; does it actually > have that feature? Looks indeed like that lack of COMMON in the GX entry is a bug... Josh, care to fix that too while at it ? :-) > Either way, it seems a good idea to create a CPU_FTRS_750CL, > the CL is an evolution of the CX, not the FX/GX (in name > at least, dunno about the gory details). Agreed. > > - .cpu_setup = __setup_cpu_750cx, > > + .cpu_setup = __setup_cpu_750fx, > > Same thing here. Are you sure 750CL doesn't need > the NAP workaround? [Is anyone sure the 750CX > actually needs it -- the comment in cpu_setup_6xx.S > doesn't instill much confidence.] Agreed too. Ben.