Re: [PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-27 Thread Martin Langer
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 09:32:25PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Martin Langer writes: > > Care to resend this with a proper description and a Signed-off-by > line? Sure. > > + switch (PVR_VER(pvr)) { > > + case 0x8000:/* 7441/7450/7451, Vger */ > > +

Re: [PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-26 Thread Paul Mackerras
Martin Langer writes: > Thanks for the hint. Inspired by that I did the logic the other way > round. So we have the same default cases as we had before and > additionally it will fit for the cores mentioned in the doc. Care to resend this with a proper description and a Signed-off-by line? > +

Re: [PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-11 Thread Martin Langer
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:01:03AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Martin Langer wrote: > > >Ppc cores by Freescale are using the configuration field instead of > >the > >major revision field for their major revision number. Those field > >definitions come from include

Re: [PATCH] Fix for Freescale ppc cores: major revision detection

2008-02-11 Thread Kumar Gala
On Feb 9, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Martin Langer wrote: > Ppc cores by Freescale are using the configuration field instead of > the > major revision field for their major revision number. Those field > definitions come from include/asm-powerpc/reg.h. > > Look at the pdf below and you will see that PV