From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755514AbYJNF7p (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:59:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751383AbYJNF7h (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:59:37 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:44390 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750766AbYJNF7g (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:59:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:06:16 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Hans Schou Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] SiS55x, another x86 CPU Message-ID: <20081014060616.GO12131@one.firstfloor.org> References: <87d4i5rq7i.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >Your attachment seems to be windows line end damaged. > > Strange, Pine usually do it right with file attachments. It likely was added on some Windows system. > (what is "windows line end damaged"?) It used MSDOS style \r\n line terminators instead of Unix style \n. > > >Also the changes are so small that it's not worth adding a CONFIG > >for it. Just add it unconditionally. > > I was not trying to invent anything. It is almost a copy of the UMC > CPU, except that it is 586 code. Then the comment applies to that one too. > > >And hardcoding the cache size for all of SiS seems a bit extreme. > >What happens when SiS ever brings out another part with different > >caches? Ideally figure out some way to detect this particular CPU > >and only use 8 KB only for that. Alternatively ignore it (there's > >nothing really in the kernel that uses the cache sizes anyways) > > In that case the cache could be deleted. > > One annoying thing is that the "model name" in /proc/cpuinfo is > written as "00/55" instead of "SiS55x" when the CPU is not detected. Is that really so bad? > > The worst problem is that an unknown CPU writes: > printk(KERN_ERR "CPU: Your system may be unstable.\n"); Perhaps it would be better to just remove that printk. Its truth seems doubtful. > and the SiS55x is not unstable. Not until now at least and it has been > on the market for 5 years. > > Maybe the message could be changed to something less catastrophic when > CPU is unknown. Yes that would be a good idea. -Andi