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

[Olof Johansson]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:57:32AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 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. :)

Sure, it might be a few, but we already have a handful. And having a
bitfield only gives you a chance to say here or not, no version numbers,
capacities, etc.

Anyway, I can't really debate it since I haven't seen the spec, just one
implementation.

> > (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. :)

Yes, I know. Just saying. :)


-Olof