From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
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 84180DDDD5
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:21:28 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: Sequoia kernel crash workaround.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070920122919.32dd8061@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
References: <46F16CC9.3010003@ru.mvista.com> <200709192119.48259.sr@denx.de>
	<20070919193024.GA28163@lixom.net>
	<20070919150818.3fecc1bc@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
	<46F2A640.1000802@ru.mvista.com> <20070920172506.GA16354@lixom.net>
	<20070920122919.32dd8061@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:21:04 +1000
Message-Id: <1190535664.3723.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>, Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>,
	David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>


On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 12:29 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:25:06 -0500
> Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 08:56:32PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> > >
> > > I was thinking about it. Looks like it's the best place, but the code that 
> > > actually calls setup_cpu is under ifdef CONFIG_PPC64, while lots of 
> > > cpu_setup functions are defined for ppc32 processors.
> > > Is it OK to remove this ifdef, or should I do CONFIG_PPC64 || CONFIG_44x?
> > 
> > Sounds like something that went wrong at the merge of ppc and ppc64.
> > 
> > Take out the ifdef, even if there's fallout we should deal with it
> > instead of adding more complex ifdefs.
> 
> Yeah.  Looks like BenH did this in commit:
> 
> 42c4aaadb737e0e672b3fb86b2c41ff59f0fb8bc
> 
> Ben, any reason you ifdef'd it for ppc64?

I'll have to check on monday what's up there, but isn't setup_cpu called
from a different place on 32 bits? There are some subtle difference with
the way the cpu feature stuff is initialized /done between 32 and 64
bits that we haven't fully reconciled yet. 

Ben.