[PATCH 5/6] PowerPC 440EPx: Sequoia board support

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 03:39:23 -0500
Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:05:42 +1000
> > David Gibson <david at gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:01:17AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>>> +	{ /* 440EPX  - without Security/Kasumi  */
> >>>>> +		.pvr_mask		= 0xf0000fff,
> >>>>> +		.pvr_value		= 0x200008D4,
> >>>>> +		.cpu_name		= "440EPX - no Security/Kasumi",
> >>>>> +		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_44X,
> >>>>> +		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_BOOKE |  
> >>>>> PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU, /*
> >>>>> 440EPX has an FPU */
> >>>>> +		.icache_bsize		= 32,
> >>>>> +		.dcache_bsize		= 32,
> >>>>> +	},
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the with/without Security/Kasumi versions have no  
> >>>> differences in
> >>>> their cputable entry other than the PVR, couldn't you just  
> >>>> remove the
> >>>> relevant PVR bit from the mask and use a single entry?
> >>>
> >>> And get rid of the stupid "has an FPU" comment at the same time
> >>> please :-)
> >>
> >> Actually that comment may be worthwhile if expanded a little.  I  
> >> think
> >> the point is that 440EPx *unlike most other 4xx chips* has an  
> >> FPU.  So
> >> the point of the comment is not explaining the feature bit, which is
> >> obvious, but as a "no, really, it does".
> >
> > Right.  440EP(x) are the only currently available 44x chips that
> > contain an FPU, so I also think the comment can stay.
> 
> I agree w/Segher the comment is redundant.  Just make a note of the  
> fact that we really have FPU in the commit message.

Fine.  I don't really care either way because in the grand scheme of
things, it has no significant impact either way.  It's just a comment.

josh