how to check for "optional" ppc chip features (MSR_BE)
Paul Mackerras
paulus at samba.org
Tue May 13 21:55:22 EST 2008
Roland McGrath writes:
> Yeah, all that stuff I could figure out as needed. What I really meant
> was, where is the big official table of which chips behave which ways that
> you base all code that on? Actually, I don't really care as long as you
> all are happy to be responsible for figuring out what matters. With the
> patch I posted to use MSR_BE, I took Kumar Gala's word as gospel that all
> the chips on which we use MSR_SE also have MSR_BE. If that's not right,
> then I hope you'd like to pick a feature bit, populate the tables, etc.,
> and fix the definition of arch_has_block_step() as appropriate.
It turns out that the 601 doesn't support MSR_BE. It looks like all
the "classic" 32-bit implementations after that (603, 604, 7xx, 7xxx)
implemented BE, as do POWER3 and RS64. I'll check the later 64-bit
processors -- I think they all implement BE. 4xx and Book E have it
in a different form. I'll let Kumar find out about 8xx and 82xx.
So it looks like we need to define a new feature bit to mean "supports
block-step". Is this something that userspace will expect to be told
about via the AT_HWCAP entry in the aux vector?
Paul.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list