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 80EF0DDE05 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:48:42 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix 44x Machine Check handling From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Olof Johansson In-Reply-To: <20071116074025.GA4741@lixom.net> References: <20071116072149.350ADDDDF4@ozlabs.org> <20071116074025.GA4741@lixom.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:41:08 +1100 Message-Id: <1195198868.28865.142.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 01:40 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > I'm not sure I like this. It introduces another cpu feature flag, > that we'll soon run out of if it's used to signify version info per > implementation like this. > > 1) The SET_IVOR could be done from the cpu_setups for 440A instead > (i.e. introduce one). > > 2) Please just move the machine check handlers out to individual ones > instead of using the generic one. That way you don't need runtime checks > between the two (they don't seem to share much of it as-is anyway). > > With the above two changes, you shouldn't need the feature bit any more. We can easily make the cpu features bigger ... But ok, I'll have a look at doing it the way you suggest. Cheers, Ben.