On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:37:12AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 September 2011 10:32:27 Dave Martin wrote:
> > Note that the hwcaps info in /proc/cpuinfo is generated from the same
> > hwcaps word exposed via auxv so, for now, the information is identical.
> >
> > I would normally
On Wednesday 07 September 2011 10:32:27 Dave Martin wrote:
> Note that the hwcaps info in /proc/cpuinfo is generated from the same
> hwcaps word exposed via auxv so, for now, the information is identical.
>
> I would normally rate parsing /proc/cpuinfo as being a bad idea, but
> /proc/cpuinfo is p
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:10:10AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 5 September 2011 10:52, Marcin Juszkiewicz
> wrote:
> > W dniu 05.09.2011 11:28, Andrew Stubbs pisze:
> >> Next question ... is /proc/cpuinfo really the best way to detect this?
> >>
> >> I mean, is auxv a better approach? Or some
On 5 September 2011 10:52, Marcin Juszkiewicz
wrote:
> W dniu 05.09.2011 11:28, Andrew Stubbs pisze:
>> Next question ... is /proc/cpuinfo really the best way to detect this?
>>
>> I mean, is auxv a better approach? Or something else? What's the most
>> efficient, and most stable API to read the C
W dniu 05.09.2011 11:28, Andrew Stubbs pisze:
> Next question ... is /proc/cpuinfo really the best way to detect this?
>
> I mean, is auxv a better approach? Or something else? What's the most
> efficient, and most stable API to read the CPU architecture, CPU model,
> and FPU/NEON availability?
>
On 01/09/11 10:40, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
I'm currently trying to get GCC to auto-detect what CPU to optimize for
by finding out what CPU it's actually running on (the user would only
have to pass -mcpu=native). It does this simply by reading /proc/cpuinfo.
Thanks to everybody who answered my pre
W dniu 02.09.2011 06:40, David Brown pisze:
> Processor : ARMv7 Processor rev 1 (v7l)
> BogoMIPS: 191.69
> Features: swp half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3
> CPU implementer : 0x41
> CPU architecture: 7
> CPU variant : 0x0
> CPU part: 0xc05
> CPU revision:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 10:40:27AM +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> I'm currently trying to get GCC to auto-detect what CPU to optimize
> for by finding out what CPU it's actually running on (the user would
> only have to pass -mcpu=native). It does this simply by reading
> /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> The pr
On 01/09/11 12:02, Pawel Moll wrote:
>> If you search the specs on http://infocenter.arm.com for "Main ID
>> register" you should get all the numbers you wish for :-)
>
> Apparently it's called "ID Code Register" for ARM9 and the expected (not
> tested ;-) values would be:
Thanks Paweł, this is ex
> > PS. The number I quoted are valid when "CPU implementer" == 0x41 (ARM Ltd.)
>
> What about non-ARM implementations from e.g. Qualcomm and Marvell?
Sorry, I have no access to theirs specs and the ARM ARM (Architecture
Reference Manual) does not enforce any particular numbering scheme.
Some SA
On Thursday 01 September 2011, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently trying to get GCC to auto-detect what CPU to optimize for
> by finding out what CPU it's actually running on (the user would only
> have to pass -mcpu=native). It does this simply by reading /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> The p
On 1 September 2011 12:02, Pawel Moll wrote:
>> If you search the specs on http://infocenter.arm.com for "Main ID
>> register" you should get all the numbers you wish for :-)
>
> Apparently it's called "ID Code Register" for ARM9 and the expected (not
> tested ;-) values would be:
>
> ARM926 - 0x9
On 1 September 2011 10:40, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently trying to get GCC to auto-detect what CPU to optimize for by
> finding out what CPU it's actually running on (the user would only have to
> pass -mcpu=native). It does this simply by reading /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> The problem
> I actually did look for a bit and never found a definitive list. I've
> found descriptions of the bitfield and some sample values, but I haven't
> seen an actual official list.
That's correct, I don't think such a list exists (at least within
official ARM specs). What I meant is searching for th
W dniu 01.09.2011 12:20, Pawel Moll pisze:
>> Does anybody have a list of such numbers?
ARM926 - 0x926 (atmel at91sam9263)
ARM920 - 0x920 (atmel at91rm9200)
I have some armv4t/v5t/v6 systems here but none of them under power.
___
linaro-dev mailing lis
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 11:20:21AM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
> > Does anybody have a list of such numbers?
>
> If you search the specs on http://infocenter.arm.com for "Main ID
> register" you should get all the numbers you wish for :-)
I actually did look for a bit and never found a definitive li
> If you search the specs on http://infocenter.arm.com for "Main ID
> register" you should get all the numbers you wish for :-)
Apparently it's called "ID Code Register" for ARM9 and the expected (not
tested ;-) values would be:
ARM926 - 0x926
ARM946 - 0x946
ARM966 - 0x966
etc., you get the pict
> Does anybody have a list of such numbers?
If you search the specs on http://infocenter.arm.com for "Main ID
register" you should get all the numbers you wish for :-)
> Or else, perhaps people could just post any number they happen to know?
For v6 and v7 processors, the /proc/cpuinfo's "CPU par
18 matches
Mail list logo
