|To:||Robert Millan <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Enable AT_PLATFORM for Loongson 2F CPU|
|From:||David Daney <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Mon, 08 Nov 2010 14:50:43 -0800|
|Cc:||Aurelien Jarno <email@example.com>, Ralf Baechle <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com|
|References:||<1289133059.1547.0@thorin> <4CD84BEA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <AANLkTikCD_HjshMiP0ubyYZkPDoRb8nkFScUPE3GB2F4@mail.gmail.com>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:220.127.116.11) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10|
On 11/08/2010 02:27 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
2010/11/8 David Daney<email@example.com>:I seems weird to me that you cannot get this information from the PRId register. Perhaps the documentation is defective.Yes, I agree it's really shortsighted of them, but I don't see any way around it.The Chinese version of the Loongson2E user guide seems to say something about the two lower nibbles of the PRId, but being a non-chinese reader, I have no idea if it would be relevant. I would think that the low order bits of the register can reliably differentiate these two parts.There are English versions for both 2E and 2F. See page 66 of the Loongson 2F document: http://dev.lemote.com/files/resource/documents/Loongson/ls2f/Loongson2FUserGuide.pdf <quote> The revision number can distinguish some chip revisions, however there is no guarantee that changes to the chip will necessarily be reflected in the PRId register, or that changes to the revision number necessarily reflect real chip changes. For this reason, software should not rely on the revision number in the PRId register to characterize the chip. </quote> Page 72 of the Loongson 2E document (http://www.lemote.com/upfiles/godson2e-user-manual-V0.6.pdf) has the same text. In both documents, the lower byte is defined as "Revision number", and its value is 0x02 (for both 2E and 2F). If you'd rather not assume the docs are correct, I can test if my Yeeloong (Loongson 2F) has 0x02, but then in case it's something higher, would you be willing to assume: rev<= 0x02 --> 2E rev> 0x02 --> 2F
No, I refuse to assume that. Look at the description of the register in this document: http://dev.lemote.com/files/resource/documents/Loongson/ls2e/godson2e.user.manual.pdfOn page 49, it says that bits 0-3 contain the minor version number and bits 4-7 are the major version number (according to a workmate that reads Chinese).
I don't know for certain, but it seems plausible that the 2E and 2F will differ in bits 4-7, and bits 0-3 can be ignored.
or similar logic? This seems risky if we take into account that there's no guarantee from the vendor.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH] Enable AT_PLATFORM for Loongson 2F CPU, Robert Millan|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH] Enable AT_PLATFORM for Loongson 2F CPU, Robert Millan|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Enable AT_PLATFORM for Loongson 2F CPU, Robert Millan|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Enable AT_PLATFORM for Loongson 2F CPU, Robert Millan|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|