linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Enable AT_PLATFORM for Loongson 2F CPU

To: Robert Millan <rmh@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable AT_PLATFORM for Loongson 2F CPU
From: Robert Millan <rmh@gnu.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 13:30:59 +0100
Cc: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:date:from:subject:to :cc:in-reply-to:x-mailer:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=21TpNNB6G5+W2+jF3xq1AqeNquwbxp1WRfh0VqwunhQ=; b=mwtUn/+L0A5Vc94efoYLVpeIV8Up2toc6EtXlYsw2XdCxuANqzpgOap2b95NbEmTgd RoG8GPku5o/TnPEgth2phRJDlRnfFY1URe+rK3s8FQog8ppDzBmawSsJZc7L/yTr3e+s PhBWe8+iZbMzT9UIHnlz8MKq0Aa//Dm+hKjPQ=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:subject:to:cc:in-reply-to:x-mailer:message-id :mime-version:content-type; b=PRavX4DN7HygNEqHkzL5ntPla60HwYb6QxjY8+Ji4X72oDnSElSGhkbrES9i7ow3Le 5Jnv0myygJ7+BWq7YX1jaMnKL1qDh3PyNtBCGAY+N9BPd1xp1CcR4DQNxfDW69yYXxGd CfxYJpcMoMi7NiSsGIt8QgL4ACp+sueH8sMPs=
In-reply-to: <AANLkTik3SH8EmhcgY9HNQLLk9Np+E6LGo8jVoGQiQCx4@mail.gmail.com> (from rmh@gnu.org on Thu Nov 4 19:43:08 2010)
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
El 04/11/10 19:43:08, en/na Robert Millan va escriure:
> David Daney a écrit :
> > You are claiming that all loongson2 are loongson-2f.  Is that 
> > really true?  Or are there other types of loongson2 that are not
> > loongson-2f?
> 
> I'll figure out how to distinguish them and send a new patch.

I looked at details about CPU identification, and this
seems to be broken.

See the the notes about PRId in pages 72 and 66, respectively:
http://dev.lemote.com/files/resource/documents/Loongson/ls2f/Loongson2FUserGuide.pdf

In both 2E and 2F, the implementation field is the same (0x63).

Revision field is the same too, according to docs, and it can't
be used anyway (no garantee of consistency).

I'm sending a new patch that uses machtype instead. Yes, I know
it's a bit of a kludge, but it really seems to be the only way.

> Well I appreciate consistency with GCC flag names,

Actually, I missread GCC flag (it's dashless).  I'm using
"loongson2f" as David requested.

Attachment: loongson2f.diff
Description: Text Data

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>