On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:45 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 18:41 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 01:40 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> I'm not sure I like this. It introduces another cpu feature flag, >>> that we'll soon run out of if it's used to signify version info per >>> implementation like this. >>> >>> 1) The SET_IVOR could be done from the cpu_setups for 440A instead >>> (i.e. introduce one). >>> >>> 2) Please just move the machine check handlers out to individual >>> ones >>> instead of using the generic one. That way you don't need runtime >>> checks >>> between the two (they don't seem to share much of it as-is anyway). >>> >>> With the above two changes, you shouldn't need the feature bit any >>> more. >> >> We can easily make the cpu features bigger ... But ok, I'll have a >> look >> at doing it the way you suggest. > > Note that first, I'd like to figure out if there are other relevant > differences with 440A ... arch/ppc didn't list any and diff'ing PDFs > is > not fun but if people around here know, please speak up
I think it added isel support. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
