From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6810AB6F07 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:31:29 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFC] arch/powerpc: Remove duplicate/redundant Altivec entries Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: <20100908015916.GB17010@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:31:18 -0500 Message-Id: <5EF3711D-EC6B-4A09-99AF-735FCFEB315D@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1283885815-11175-1-git-send-email-msm@freescale.com> <20100908015916.GB17010@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Matthew McClintock , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 01:56:55PM -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote: >=20 >> In lieu of having multiple similiar lines, we can just have one >> generic cpu-as line for CONFIG_ALTIVEC >>=20 >> --- >> Was hoping to get comments about this change and if anyone sees any = potential >> problems? >=20 > I have a memory that we can get some altivec instructions even with > CONFIG_ALTIVEC =3D n, though presumably they never get executed. We > would have to check that before applying your patch. How would we check that? - k=