Am 29.08.2013 06:29, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy: > On 08/16/2013 08:35 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Instead of relying on cpu_model, obtain the device tree node label >> per CPU. Use DeviceClass::fw_name when available. This implicitly >> resolves HOST@0 node labels for those CPUs through inheritance. >> >> Whenever DeviceClass::fw_name is not available, derive it from the CPU's >> type name and fill it in for that class with a "PowerPC," prefix for >> PAPR compliance. > > > I'd rather use the family's @desc instead of CPU class name, would be > simpler and we would not have nodes like "PowerPC,POWER7-family@0" (this is > what I get when comment out dc->fw_name for power7 with my PVR patch, just > to test).
Negative, desc is a free-text field and may contain spaces, parenthesis, etc. Each model may set desc differently btw, so given my change request for the comparison, we might end up with "POWER7 v2.1" on that particular PVR. > Either way, in what case do you expect that code to work at all? power7, > 7+, 8 have fw_name field initialized, what else is really supported for > spapr and requires this workaround? 970 comes to mind? Anyway, this was just a more direct way to address the issues raised by Prerna. If you guys don't see the need to enforce these naming rules beyond a supported list of POWER CPUs then we can strip it down further, possibly falling back to a fixed "PowerPC,UNKNOWN" rather than trying to construct a name. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
