On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:15:09AM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:15:09 +0900 (JST)
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Subject: Re: End c-tx49.c's misserable existence
> From: Atsushi Nemoto <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:48:25 +0200, Ralf Baechle <email@example.com>
> >>>>> said:
> >> One more request. Please enclose R4600_V1_HIT_CACHEOP_WAR and
> >> R4600_V2_HIT_CACHEOP_WAR with appropriate CONFIG_CPU_XXX. I do not
> >> know what CPUs need this workaround... (at least TX49 does not need
> >> this)
> ralf> I'll leave it unconditionally enabled for now because the
> ralf> Makefiles could behave in undefined ways if multiple
> ralf> CONFIG_CPU_* options are selected and quite a few systems
> ralf> support both the R4600 and other processors like the Indy.
> ralf> Another day.
> I have been misunderstood that people who needs the workaround always
> select CONFIG_CPU_R4X00. But it is not true. Now I understand.
> But recent reorganization increased a number of c-r4k.c users
> somewhat. How about introducing new config macros such as
> CONFIG_R4600_V1_WORKAROUNDS ?
That's all part of the Great Plan. For now you can control many of the
workarounds in <asm/war.h>.