On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:10:05AM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 09/05/2016 09:41 AM, David Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:59:23PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 12:58 +1000, David Gibson wrote: > >>> > >>> With the new chip class per cpu class, does this chip_type field > >>> serve > >>> any purpose any more? > >>> > >>>> + k->chip_f000f = 0x120d304980000000ull; > >>> > >>> A comment somewhere explaining what this cryptic value is would be > >>> nice. > >> > >> It's snapshot from an actual chip ;-) Some of the fields we know about > >> such as the actual chip "type" and DD version but some are obscure even > >> to us :-) > > > > Sorry, I actually meant what does "chip_f000f" mean, rather than what > > does the value inside there mean. > > f000f is the xscom address of the register containing this CFAM > chip id. I will add a chip_cfam_id attribute to the chip object. > I guess it makes more sense. > > Other chips (like the Centaur) have such an ID.
Ok.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
