On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:33:48PM -0500, Maynard Johnson wrote: > Will Schmidt wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote: > > > >>>>Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"? > >>>> > >>> > >>>This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile. It may be the > >>>same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc. So since the internal name was ++ > I have no idea if there will be a revision 4, etc, but I'm assuming the > behavior would be the same as rev 3. So I'm not in favor of changing
The way the cputable patch is now, the rev 4 would match the base revision anyway. Maybe it makes more sense to make PVR xxxx01xx and xxxx02xx explicitly match the old power5+, and make everything else match power5++? I guess it all depends on the chance of IBM doing another major rev of power5. Given it's current phase of product maturity I suppose it's not all that likely. Doing it this way saves yet another cputable entry as well, since it would otherwise mean two added entries instead of one. -Olof _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
