From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:35:14 -0600 To: Arnd Bergmann Message-ID: <20050204183514.GB17586@austin.ibm.com> References: <20050204072254.GA17565@austin.ibm.com> <200502041336.59892.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200502041336.59892.arnd@arndb.de> From: olof@austin.ibm.com (Olof Johansson) Cc: akpm@osdl.org, trini@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC/PPC64: Introduce CPU_HAS_FEATURE() macro List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 01:36:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I have a somewhat similar patch that does the same to the > systemcfg->platform checks. I'm not sure if we should use the same inline > function for both checks, but I do think that they should be used in a > similar way, e.g. CPU_HAS_FEATURE(x) and PLATFORM_HAS_FEATURE(x). Yep. Firmware features are also on the list. I figured I'd do CPU features first though since they are the ones that started bugging me. > The same stuff is obviously possible for cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features as well. > Do you think that it will help there? Nice. It won't be quite as easy to do compile-time for cpu features. pSeries will need all cpus enabled since we have them all on various machines, etc. I guess Powermac/Maple could benefit from it. In the end it depends on how hairy the implementation would get vs performance improvement. -Olof