Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++
Olof Johansson
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.
-Olof
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list