From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (fed1rmmtao12.cox.net [68.230.241.27]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C77D67A65 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:39:06 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:39:05 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Kumar Gala Message-ID: <20050321163904.GT8345@smtp.west.cox.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-embedded Subject: Re: [RFC] ppc32: Report chip version in common /proc/cpuinfo handling List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:26:52PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > You asked me to look at doing the following. I just want to make sure > this is what we want to do (and call it). I'm a little concerned that > 'chip' is not necessary the right name in light of TSI10x and MV64x60 > being described by ppc_sys in the future. "chip" or "chip(set)" or anything else is fine with me (I'm horrible at names). But I don't like: > +#if defined (CONFIG_85xx) || defined (CONFIG_83xx) > + if (cur_ppc_sys_spec->ppc_sys_name) > + seq_printf(m, "chip\t\t: %s\n", cur_ppc_sys_spec->ppc_sys_name); > +#endif ifdef'ing this. If the field is set, we should print it. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/