Re: [RFC][PATCH] powerpc/book3e: Fix CPU feature handling on e5500

2011-04-06 Thread Kumar Gala
On Apr 6, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Kumar, > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 00:29:32 -0500 Kumar Gala > wrote: >> >> * I'm concerned if its ok to assume 'enum' can handle a 64-bit mask or not. >> I'm assuming this is the reason that we use a #define on __powerpc64__ > > enums a

Re: [RFC][PATCH] powerpc/book3e: Fix CPU feature handling on e5500

2011-04-05 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Kumar, On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 00:29:32 -0500 Kumar Gala wrote: > > * I'm concerned if its ok to assume 'enum' can handle a 64-bit mask or not. > I'm assuming this is the reason that we use a #define on __powerpc64__ enums are *ints* and therefore 32 bit. gcc can cope, but warns about it (I th

[RFC][PATCH] powerpc/book3e: Fix CPU feature handling on e5500

2011-04-05 Thread Kumar Gala
The CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE and CPU_FTRS_ALWAYS defines did not encompass e5500 CPU features when built for 64-bit. This causes issues with cpu_has_feature() as it utilizes the POSSIBLE & ALWAYS defines as part of its check. Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala --- * I'm concerned if its ok to assume 'enum' can