On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 11:41 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 10:26 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> writes: > > > > > > In any case, "nohash" is the term used elsewhere. > > > > How about using swtlb ? (nohash always confused me, It would be nice to > > be explict and us software tlb ?) > > I'd prefer nohash. Besides being existing practice (what's confusing about > it?), e6500 is nohash but has a partial hw tlb, and 603 is considered hash > despite having a software-loaded tlb.
It's not a great name because it describes what the MMU is *not*, rather than what it *is*. But it is the existing name, and there doesn't seem to be anything particular common about the other MMUs that we can use as a name. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
