From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org
Cc: olof@austin.ibm.com (Olof Johansson),
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@osdl.org, trini@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
anton@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC/PPC64: Abstract cpu_feature checks.
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:57:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200502061257.40798.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050206032645.GA18845@austin.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 803 bytes --]
On Sünndag 06 Februar 2005 04:26, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
> Abstract most manual mask checks of cpu_features with cpu_has_feature()
>
Just to get back to the point of consistant naming: In case we do the
other proposed changes as well, is everyone happy with the following
function names?
cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_X) cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features & CPU_FTR_X
cpu_feature_possible(CPU_FTR_X) CPU_FTR_POSSIBLE_MASK & CPU_FTR_X
fw_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_X) cur_cpu_spec->fw_features & FW_FTR_X
platform_is(PLATFORM_X) systemcfg->platform == PLATFORM_X
platform_possible(PLATFORM_X) PLATFORM_POSSIBLE_MASK & PLATFORM_X
platform_compatible(PLATFORM_X) systemcfg->platform & PLATFORM_X
It's not as consistant as I'd like it to be, but it's the best I could
come up with.
Arnd <><
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-06 12:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-04 7:22 [PATCH] PPC/PPC64: Introduce CPU_HAS_FEATURE() macro Olof Johansson
2005-02-04 8:17 ` Pekka Enberg
2005-02-04 17:20 ` Olof Johansson
2005-02-05 7:48 ` Pekka Enberg
2005-02-05 9:08 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-02-04 12:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2005-02-04 18:35 ` Olof Johansson
2005-02-04 18:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2005-02-04 23:50 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-02-04 23:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-02-05 0:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2005-02-05 1:34 ` Anton Blanchard
2005-02-05 11:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2005-02-05 1:47 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-02-04 14:45 ` Tom Rini
2005-02-05 18:46 ` [PATCH] PPC/PPC64: Abstract cpu_feature checks Olof Johansson
2005-02-06 3:26 ` Olof Johansson
2005-02-06 11:57 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200502061257.40798.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=olof@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=trini@kernel.crashing.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox