Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++
olof at lixom.net
Thu Jul 12 06:51:40 EST 2007
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:33:48PM -0500, Maynard Johnson wrote:
> Will Schmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote:
> >>>>Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?
> >>>This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile. It may be the
> >>>same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc. So since the internal name was ++
> I have no idea if there will be a revision 4, etc, but I'm assuming the
> behavior would be the same as rev 3. So I'm not in favor of changing
The way the cputable patch is now, the rev 4 would match the base revision
anyway. Maybe it makes more sense to make PVR xxxx01xx and xxxx02xx
explicitly match the old power5+, and make everything else match power5++?
I guess it all depends on the chance of IBM doing another major rev of
power5. Given it's current phase of product maturity I suppose it's not
all that likely. Doing it this way saves yet another cputable entry as
well, since it would otherwise mean two added entries instead of one.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev