| To: | Franck <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Add 4KSx support (try 2) |
| From: | "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:45:48 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> |
| In-reply-to: | <cda58cb80510310801v2d60f60bh@mail.gmail.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <cda58cb80510310034k60b273dfm@mail.gmail.com> <4365DF22.8060004@mips.com> <cda58cb80510310801v2d60f60bh@mail.gmail.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716) |
Franck wrote: There are places, for example arch/mips/mm/cache.c, but also some of the other makefiles, where you're using your new config flags to drive things where the standard CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32 (which I guess has now fragmented into CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_R1 and CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_R2, which would apply to the Sc and Sd respectively) would do the right thing while creating fewer source file mods.That's correct but CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_Rx seems to be a fallback case. Don't other cpu use their own flags whereas they could just use CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_Rx flag instead ?
I think that those other CPUs aren't, strictly speaking,
MIPS32-compliant CPUs in one respect or another, so they
end up picking up MIPS32 kernel behavior "a la carte".
The 4KS family is a strict superset.
Regards,
Kevin K.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC] Add 4KSx support (try 2), Franck |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Git Repo, Sathesh Babu Edara |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Add 4KSx support (try 2), Franck |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |