From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com (e6.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e6.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C7ADDDDB for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:59:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAGF0QkM015947 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:00:26 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.6) with ESMTP id lAGEwmiE128296 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:58:48 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id lAGEwlXZ004341 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:58:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:58:13 -0600 From: Josh Boyer To: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix 44x Machine Check handling Message-ID: <20071116085813.3cebed79@weaponx> In-Reply-To: <20071116074025.GA4741@lixom.net> References: <20071116072149.350ADDDDF4@ozlabs.org> <20071116074025.GA4741@lixom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:40:25 -0600 Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 06:21:06PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > This removes the old CONFIG_440A which was a pain for multiplatform > > kernel and wasn't set properly by default and replaces it with a > > CPU feature. This makes Machine Check reporting work correctly on > > my Ebony (440GP) board. > > I'm not sure I like this. It introduces another cpu feature flag, > that we'll soon run out of if it's used to signify version info per > implementation like this. > > 1) The SET_IVOR could be done from the cpu_setups for 440A instead > (i.e. introduce one). Yeah, that might work. I'm wondering if either method needs to take arch/ppc into account, as the cputable is shared. > 2) Please just move the machine check handlers out to individual ones > instead of using the generic one. That way you don't need runtime checks > between the two (they don't seem to share much of it as-is anyway). Anton pinged me about cleaning that up a couple months ago. I have a half-baked patch for it somewhere, but I agree having 4xx set a ppc_md specific handler would be a good idea. josh