From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
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 ESMTP id 23D70DDDE4
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:55:31 +1100 (EST)
Message-Id: <BC413657-C715-44E3-B5B5-D173E33E862F@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
In-Reply-To: <1195199141.28865.144.camel@pasglop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix 44x Machine Check handling
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:55:25 -0600
References: <20071116072149.350ADDDDF4@ozlabs.org>
	<20071116074025.GA4741@lixom.net>
	<1195198868.28865.142.camel@pasglop>
	<1195199141.28865.144.camel@pasglop>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>


On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:45 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

>
> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 18:41 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 01:40 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> With the above two changes, you shouldn't need the feature bit any  
>>> more.
>>
>> We can easily make the cpu features bigger ... But ok, I'll have a  
>> look
>> at doing it the way you suggest.
>
> Note that first, I'd like to figure out if there are other relevant
> differences with 440A ... arch/ppc didn't list any and diff'ing PDFs  
> is
> not fun but if people around here know, please speak up


I think it added isel support.

- k