On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 16:03 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:53:59PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 10:08 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:48:44PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > > > Since other OS's may be running on the other cores don't use tlbivax
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_44x
> > > > +void __init early_init_mmu_44x(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
> > > > + if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "ibm,47x-AMP"))
> > > > + amp = 1;
> > > > +}
> > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_44x */
> > >
> > > A test against a hardcoded compatible string seems a nasty way to do
> > > this. Maybe we should define a new boolean property for the root
> > > node.
> >
> > I'm not crazy about this string, but I needed something in the device
> > tree to key off of. Freescale has something similar (i.e.
> > MPC8572DS-CAMP), so I chose to follow their example. I'd be happy to
> > replace it with a boolean property. Any objection to just using
> > "amp"?
>
> Bit too short, I think. I'd suggest either spelling out
> 'asymmetric-multiprocessor' or 'cooperative-partition' (a more
> accurate term, IMO).
I could be wrong, but I thought the A stands for Asynchronous, not
Asymmetric. I thought Asymmetric means that different types of tasks
run on the secondary processors, as on the Cell. Anyway, going with
'cooperative-partition' would avoid that confusion.
Shaggy
--
Dave Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
