From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from TX2EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (tx2ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "Cybertrust SureServer Standard Validation CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F06FB70CB for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 04:33:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail39-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail39-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62B9302D2 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.247]) by mail39-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D554F0075 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:33:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from de01smr01.freescale.net (de01smr01.freescale.net [10.208.0.31]) by az33egw01.freescale.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9CHXBYd016871 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:33:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net (az33exm25.am.freescale.net [10.64.32.16]) by de01smr01.freescale.net (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id o9CHmIF5017585 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:48:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:33:08 -0500 From: Scott Wood To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/fsl-booke: Add support for FSL 64-bit e5500 core Message-ID: <20101012123308.57a59830@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> In-Reply-To: <1286898653-2266-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1286898653-2266-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> 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 Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:50:52 -0500 Kumar Gala wrote: > The new e5500 core is similar to the e500mc core but adds 64-bit > support. We support running it in 32-bit mode as it is identical to the > e500mc. > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala > --- > * Updated to remove CONFIG_PPC_E5500 and use E500MC It still has E500 || E500MC all over the place... If E500MC is not going to imply E500 that should be consistent for both 32 and 64 bit -- though I think it would make more sense that E500MC does imply E500. -Scott