From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <17490.51212.357234.664398@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:57:32 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [RFC , PATCH] support for the ibm,pa_features cpu property In-Reply-To: <20060428192149.GJ5518@pb15.lixom.net> References: <1146249684.27214.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060428192149.GJ5518@pb15.lixom.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Olof Johansson writes: > Do you know why they went for this brand new extra architected bitfield > instead of continuing down the way that processor features always have > been documented before, by adding a property to the cpu device node? They wanted to cover basically everything that we have CPU feature bits for, plus some other things. That would have been a lot of new properties, so they went for one that had a bitmap in it, and made it extensible in two different directions for good measure while they were at it. :) > (Now, the naming convention of calling it a "pa feature" is unfortunate, > but nothing I can really complain about since our stuff is not yet in > tree.) The "pa" is just "processor architecture", nothing to do with your employer. :) Paul.