On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 03:39:23 -0500
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Fine. I don't really care either way because in the grand scheme of
things, it has no significant impact either way. It's just a comment.
josh
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
