Am 22.10.2011 12:20, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 3 October 2011 11:32, Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote: >> -#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136 0x4117b363 >> -#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R2 0x4107b362 >> +#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1P3 0x4117b363 >> +#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0P2 0x4107b362 > > I don't think the patchlevels are important enough to > memorialise in the constant names. The important > distinction in behaviour is between the r0 and r1, so > I think that ARM1136_R0 vs _R1 would be better.
Would you be okay if we do the following? #define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0 ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0P2 #define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1 ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1P3 My point is that the number is actually hardcoded in there, whatever we name the constant. ARM1136 or ARM1136_R0 gives the impression of a more generic value. Masking would be the only way to have generic code there and I still haven't figured out how to do that sensibly without breaking up the whole switch. For now I have a patch cooking for CPUID preservation that I'll submit shortly. Andreas
