On Fri, 2016-07-29 at 21:42 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:18:06 +1000
> > Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu.h
> > > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu.h index eb942a446969..f413b3213a3b
> > > 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu.h
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu.h
> > > @@ -163,6 +163,18 @@ static inline void assert_pte_locked(struct
> > > mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr) }
> > > #endif /* !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM */
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_RADIX_MMU
> > > +static inline bool radix_enabled(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return mmu_has_feature(MMU_FTR_TYPE_RADIX);
> > > +}
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline bool radix_enabled(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > Won't MMU_FTRS_POSSIBLE just do the right thing when
> > !CONFIG_PPC_RADIX_MMU?
> Yes it should.
>
> I'll have to work out why Aneesh thought he needed to do it explicitly
> and whether that is needed or not.
>
IIRC, If CONFIG_PPC_RADIX_MMU=n MMU_FTR_RAIDX will not be present in the
MMU_FTRS_POSSIBLE mask
I'll also double check
Balbir
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
