From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com (nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE0EDDE45 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 13:39:17 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200704240746.05129.sr@denx.de> References: <20070424000153.GD23995@crusty.rchland.ibm.com> <200704240746.05129.sr@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440 Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:38:29 -0500 To: Stefan Roese Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Roland Dreier , Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Apr 24, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Stefan Roese wrote: > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 02:12, Roland Dreier wrote: >>>> I recall dimly that there was some user-visible difference >>>> between the >>>> 440GP and the other 440 processors, and that's why we made the >>>> platform string different. I don't recall what the difference was. >> >> FWIW, I've run the same userspace (binaries) on 405GPr, 440GP and >> 440SPe without any problems. Not that I'm a 4xx expert by any >> stretch, but I don't know of anything special about the 440GP. > > I don't know of any differences either. So I'm voting to change the > platform > to ppc440 too. After some discussion with Paul we think we figured out why 440GP was marked differently. I doesn't implement 'isel', and all other 440's do. - k