Justin Carlson wrote:
> I still would rather stick to the switch style of doing things in the future,
> though, because it's a bit more flexible; if you've got companies that fix
> errata without stepping PrID revisions or some such, then the table's going to
> have some strange special cases that don't quite fit.
Ahh, in that case I suppose the mips_cpu_config function pointer in that entry
should not be NULL. Instead it should modify the mips_cpu struct to fix
whatever quirks there. Because this function is associated with a particular
CPU, this solution is probably cleaner than having all the quirk fixes
embedded inside a case block.
> Luckily, in the end, you have to convince saner people than me. :)
Or I should wake up from hallucination. :-)