Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: Define PV_POWER7P
From: Gabriel Paubert <hidden>
Date: 2012-07-13 07:06:48
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <redacted> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:32:46 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] power: Define PV_POWER7P This change is based on the patch that Carl Love posted to LKML https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/22/309 It is included here for completeness and to enable building. When the above patch is merged, this patch can be ignored. Signed-off-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <redacted> --- arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h index f0cb7f4..b3fc2c1 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/reg.h@@ -1014,6 +1014,7 @@ #define PV_970FX 0x003C #define PV_POWER6 0x003E #define PV_POWER7 0x003F +#define PV_POWER7P 0x004A #define PV_630 0x0040 #define PV_630p 0x0041 #define PV_970MP 0x0044
Hmm, before this patch the PVR definitions were sorted in ascending numerical order, at least for the list of 64 bit processors. Your patch breaks this, which is not a good idea IMHO. For example, the 970* processors are already interspersed with other processors to maintain numerical order, therefore I don't see why the POWER7P could not be between 970GX and BE. Another inconsistency is that all other "plus" variants seem to use a lower case "p" suffix. So it would be better to use POWER7p. Regards, Gabriel