From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lixom.net (lixom.net [66.141.50.11]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780EFDDE20 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:39:59 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:51:40 -0500 From: Olof Johansson To: Maynard Johnson Subject: Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++ Message-ID: <20070711205140.GA7298@lixom.net> References: <4693CC5B.4020207@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <14287.1184096639@neuling.org> <4693E7EF.4020708@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <911.1184099498@neuling.org> <1184101660.22547.104.camel@farscape.rchland.ibm.com> <4693FB3C.4060305@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4693FB3C.4060305@us.ibm.com> Cc: willschm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Michael Neuling , mjw@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:33:48PM -0500, Maynard Johnson wrote: > Will Schmidt wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote: > > > >>>>Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"? > >>>> > >>> > >>>This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile. It may be the > >>>same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc. So since the internal name was ++ > I have no idea if there will be a revision 4, etc, but I'm assuming the > behavior would be the same as rev 3. So I'm not in favor of changing The way the cputable patch is now, the rev 4 would match the base revision anyway. Maybe it makes more sense to make PVR xxxx01xx and xxxx02xx explicitly match the old power5+, and make everything else match power5++? I guess it all depends on the chance of IBM doing another major rev of power5. Given it's current phase of product maturity I suppose it's not all that likely. Doing it this way saves yet another cputable entry as well, since it would otherwise mean two added entries instead of one. -Olof