Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, 2016-07-29 at 21:42 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes: >> > 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
That's right. The obvious thing to do would be to define MMU_FTR_RADIX to 0 when RADIX=n, but that doesn't work because it breaks the ASM FTR macros (because they check (mmu_features & mask) == mask). So instead we just remove it from the possible mask. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
