[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Add 4KSx support (try 2)

To: "Kevin D. Kissell" <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add 4KSx support (try 2)
From: Franck <>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:34:11 +0100
Cc:, Ralf Baechle <>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FBjxjaOmeJHqS0BdUh/jH+MMRqHfl6tER2i+S8EDjKGkKYoWyCk34J/RQEC0YS67/8EqhYkOhOY3QFRJ/u5Wv5Ndp5ybjVWwNb5TMEakQJldmkx/V90xoFCnN6eAzkDCCYf3mE8QwEvXOLK2Dp/8sEfFFFgL6DisM95Hrgaf4X4=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
2005/10/31, Kevin D. Kissell <>:
> 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.

If so, that makes sense. Ralf, should I modify the patch to use
CONFIG_CPU_MIPS32_Rx flags whenever it's possible as suggest Kevin ?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [RFC] Add 4KSx support (try 2), Franck <=