* [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440
@ 2007-04-19 21:16 Kumar Gala
2007-04-19 21:43 ` Josh Boyer
2007-04-21 0:20 ` Paul Mackerras
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2007-04-19 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform. Posting this to
see if anyone thinks otherwise.
- k
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
index 6b59e40..4237aea 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c
@@ -1119,7 +1119,7 @@ static struct cpu_spec cpu_specs[] = {
.cpu_user_features = COMMON_USER_BOOKE,
.icache_bsize = 32,
.dcache_bsize = 32,
- .platform = "ppc440gp",
+ .platform = "ppc440",
},
{ /* 440GP Rev. C */
.pvr_mask = 0xf0000fff,
@@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static struct cpu_spec cpu_specs[] = {
.cpu_user_features = COMMON_USER_BOOKE,
.icache_bsize = 32,
.dcache_bsize = 32,
- .platform = "ppc440gp",
+ .platform = "ppc440",
},
{ /* 440GX Rev. A */
.pvr_mask = 0xf0000fff,
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440
2007-04-19 21:16 [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440 Kumar Gala
@ 2007-04-19 21:43 ` Josh Boyer
2007-04-20 0:02 ` David Gibson
2007-04-21 0:20 ` Paul Mackerras
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Josh Boyer @ 2007-04-19 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 16:16 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform. Posting this to
> see if anyone thinks otherwise.
Seems fine to me.
josh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440
2007-04-19 21:16 [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440 Kumar Gala
2007-04-19 21:43 ` Josh Boyer
@ 2007-04-21 0:20 ` Paul Mackerras
2007-04-23 21:58 ` Kumar Gala
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Paul Mackerras @ 2007-04-21 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
Kumar Gala writes:
> I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform. Posting this to
> see if anyone thinks otherwise.
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.
Paul.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440
2007-04-21 0:20 ` Paul Mackerras
@ 2007-04-23 21:58 ` Kumar Gala
2007-04-24 0:01 ` Josh Boyer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2007-04-23 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackerras; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Kumar Gala writes:
>
>> I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform. Posting
>> this to
>> see if anyone thinks otherwise.
>
> 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.
The 440GP seems to be a book-e userspace w/o FP. Not sure how it
differs from other 440's. It seems like the 440EP are the only ones
with FPUs.
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440
2007-04-23 21:58 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2007-04-24 0:01 ` Josh Boyer
2007-04-24 0:12 ` Roland Dreier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Josh Boyer @ 2007-04-24 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Paul Mackerras
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:58:57PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> > Kumar Gala writes:
> >
> >> I don't see any reason the 440GP should its own platform. Posting
> >> this to
> >> see if anyone thinks otherwise.
> >
> > 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.
>
> The 440GP seems to be a book-e userspace w/o FP. Not sure how it
> differs from other 440's. It seems like the 440EP are the only ones
> with FPUs.
Right. I don't recall ever distinguishing 440GP from any other 440 chip
without an FPU.
josh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440
2007-04-24 0:01 ` Josh Boyer
@ 2007-04-24 0:12 ` Roland Dreier
2007-04-24 5:46 ` Stefan Roese
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Roland Dreier @ 2007-04-24 0:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josh Boyer; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Paul Mackerras
> > 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.
- R.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440
2007-04-24 0:12 ` Roland Dreier
@ 2007-04-24 5:46 ` Stefan Roese
2007-05-02 3:38 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Roese @ 2007-04-24 5:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev; +Cc: Paul Mackerras, Roland Dreier
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.
Best regards,
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440
2007-04-24 5:46 ` Stefan Roese
@ 2007-05-02 3:38 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-02 14:06 ` What defines a cpu table platform? (was Re: Change 440GP platform to ppc440) Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2007-05-02 3:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Roese; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Roland Dreier, Paul Mackerras
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* What defines a cpu table platform? (was Re: Change 440GP platform to ppc440)
2007-05-02 3:38 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2007-05-02 14:06 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2007-05-02 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackerras; +Cc: linuxppc-dev list
On May 1, 2007, at 10:38 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> 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.
This whole discussion makes me wondering what defines a new cpu table
platform? I know one application of this value is for being able to
pick "platform" specific/tuned libraries. Are there other uses?
If its just for libraries wouldn't the existence of FPUs and SPE/
Altivec warrant different platform types?
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-05-02 14:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-04-19 21:16 [RFC/PATCH] Change 440GP platform to ppc440 Kumar Gala
2007-04-19 21:43 ` Josh Boyer
2007-04-20 0:02 ` David Gibson
2007-04-21 0:20 ` Paul Mackerras
2007-04-23 21:58 ` Kumar Gala
2007-04-24 0:01 ` Josh Boyer
2007-04-24 0:12 ` Roland Dreier
2007-04-24 5:46 ` Stefan Roese
2007-05-02 3:38 ` Kumar Gala
2007-05-02 14:06 ` What defines a cpu table platform? (was Re: Change 440GP platform to ppc440) Kumar Gala
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).