On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:05:42 +1000
> David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:01:17AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>>> + { /* 440EPX - without Security/Kasumi */
>>>>> + .pvr_mask = 0xf0000fff,
>>>>> + .pvr_value = 0x200008D4,
>>>>> + .cpu_name = "440EPX - no Security/Kasumi",
>>>>> + .cpu_features = CPU_FTRS_44X,
>>>>> + .cpu_user_features = COMMON_USER_BOOKE |
>>>>> PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU, /*
>>>>> 440EPX has an FPU */
>>>>> + .icache_bsize = 32,
>>>>> + .dcache_bsize = 32,
>>>>> + },
>>>>
>>>> Since the with/without Security/Kasumi versions have no
>>>> differences in
>>>> their cputable entry other than the PVR, couldn't you just
>>>> remove the
>>>> relevant PVR bit from the mask and use a single entry?
>>>
>>> And get rid of the stupid "has an FPU" comment at the same time
>>> please :-)
>>
>> Actually that comment may be worthwhile if expanded a little. I
>> think
>> the point is that 440EPx *unlike most other 4xx chips* has an
>> FPU. So
>> the point of the comment is not explaining the feature bit, which is
>> obvious, but as a "no, really, it does".
>
> Right. 440EP(x) are the only currently available 44x chips that
> contain an FPU, so I also think the comment can stay.
I agree w/Segher the comment is redundant. Just make a note of the
fact that we really have FPU in the commit message.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
