[RFC , PATCH] support for the ibm,pa_features cpu property

[Paul Mackerras]

Olof Johansson writes:

> Do you know why they went for this brand new extra architected bitfield
> instead of continuing down the way that processor features always have
> been documented before, by adding a property to the cpu device node?

They wanted to cover basically everything that we have CPU feature
bits for, plus some other things.  That would have been a lot of new
properties, so they went for one that had a bitmap in it, and made it
extensible in two different directions for good measure while they
were at it. :)

> (Now, the naming convention of calling it a "pa feature" is unfortunate,
> but nothing I can really complain about since our stuff is not yet in
> tree.)

The "pa" is just "processor architecture", nothing to do with your
employer. :)

Paul.