linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH V15 02/12] MIPS: Loongson: Add basic Loongson-3 CPU support

To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 02/12] MIPS: Loongson: Add basic Loongson-3 CPU support
From: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 17:17:51 +0200
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhc@lemote.com>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>, "Steven J. Hill" <Steven.Hill@imgtec.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Fuxin Zhang <zhangfx@lemote.com>, Zhangjin Wu <wuzhangjin@gmail.com>, Hongliang Tao <taohl@lemote.com>, Hua Yan <yanh@lemote.com>
In-reply-to: <20131230213354.GA20586@hall.aurel32.net>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1387109676-540-1-git-send-email-chenhc@lemote.com> <1387109676-540-3-git-send-email-chenhc@lemote.com> <20131230213354.GA20586@hall.aurel32.net>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Hi,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >             switch (c->processor_id & PRID_REV_MASK) {
> >             case PRID_REV_LOONGSON2E:
> > +                   c->cputype = CPU_LOONGSON2;
> > +                   __cpu_name[cpu] = "ICT Loongson-2E";
> >                     set_elf_platform(cpu, "loongson2e");
> >                     break;
> >             case PRID_REV_LOONGSON2F:
> > +                   c->cputype = CPU_LOONGSON2;
> > +                   __cpu_name[cpu] = "ICT Loongson-2F";
> >                     set_elf_platform(cpu, "loongson2f");
> 
> I have mixed feelings about the Loongson-2 name change. On one side it's
> clearly better to have 2E and 2F instead of 2 V0.2 and 2 V0.3, and it
> should have been like that since the beginning. That said changing that
> now is kind of breaking the userland. I know that it would break debian
> installer support for example, though that should not be a real problem
> as we ship the installer with a given kernel version. I don't know if
> there are other usages that can cause a problem. Any opinion from
> others?

Changing it would break also GCC's -march=native detection. So NACK.

A.

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