Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: 85xx: separate e500 from e500mc

On 08/10/2011 10:39 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Baruch Siach [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

CONFIG_E500MC breaks e500/e500v2 systems. It defines L1_CACHE_SHIFT to 6, thus
breaking clear_pages(), probably others too.

This patch adds a new "Processor Type" entry for e500mc, and makes e500 systems
depend on PPC_E500_V1_V2.

Isn't the original invalid configuration still possible, i.e. I can
choose E500_V1_V2
and also E500MC at the same time, unless you add something like a
"depends !E500MC" to  your new V1_V2 option?

They're members of a "choice", not standalone bools -- so they're
mutually exclusive.

Alternatively, you could treat it like using i386 kernel on a modern
core by taking
the LCD for the L1_CACHE_SHIFT of the configured in platforms. 

For alignment you want to err on the high side, but for invalidation you
want to err on the low side.  For dcbz you can't err at all.

And there are other issues than cache size with combining e500v2 and e500mc.

Could it be done with sufficient hoop-jumping?  Probably.  Is it worth
it?  No.  These chips don't even have compatible userspace, unless you
use soft-float.

I have booted
a kernel built for an mpc8548 core on a P4080 CPU, so that does work (with only
minimal dts fiddling).

The opposite direction does not work, and simply booting doesn't mean
there wouldn't be issues in running that kernel on a p4080 (floating
point?  bad cache size information being given to userspace?  emulation
of non-cacheable dcbz?  performance?).

What dts fiddling?

And it keeps the ability to boot one kernel on several
platforms open (one of the reasons for the ppc --> powerpc shuffle a couple
of years ago...)

It's much better than the arch/ppc way of a separate kernel build for
every board.  Beyond a certain point there are diminishing returns on
the effort.

-Scott