From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:05:42 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] PowerPC 440EPx: Sequoia board support Message-ID: <20070801050542.GJ31391@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070730151628.GA5100@ru.mvista.com> <20070801021541.GE31391@localhost.localdomain> <1a27a299b62c4b3a1a1f8fe8912e8e40@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1a27a299b62c4b3a1a1f8fe8912e8e40@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:01:17AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >> + { /* 440EPX - without Security/Kasumi */ > >> + .pvr_mask = 0xf0000fff, > >> + .pvr_value = 0x200008D4, > >> + .cpu_name = "440EPX - no Security/Kasumi", > >> + .cpu_features = CPU_FTRS_44X, > >> + .cpu_user_features = COMMON_USER_BOOKE | PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU, /* > >> 440EPX has an FPU */ > >> + .icache_bsize = 32, > >> + .dcache_bsize = 32, > >> + }, > > > > Since the with/without Security/Kasumi versions have no differences in > > their cputable entry other than the PVR, couldn't you just remove the > > relevant PVR bit from the mask and use a single entry? > > And get rid of the stupid "has an FPU" comment at the same time > please :-) Actually that comment may be worthwhile if expanded a little. I think the point is that 440EPx *unlike most other 4xx chips* has an FPU. So the point of the comment is not explaining the feature bit, which is obvious, but as a "no, really, it does". -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson