[PATCH V2 4/6] powerpc/44x: don't use tlbivax on AMP systems

[Dave Kleikamp]

On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 16:03 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:53:59PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 10:08 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:48:44PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > > > Since other OS's may be running on the other cores don't use tlbivax
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_44x
> > > > +void __init early_init_mmu_44x(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
> > > > +	if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "ibm,47x-AMP"))
> > > > +		amp = 1;
> > > > +}
> > > > +#endif /* CONFIG_44x */
> > > 
> > > A test against a hardcoded compatible string seems a nasty way to do
> > > this.  Maybe we should define a new boolean property for the root
> > > node.
> > 
> > I'm not crazy about this string, but I needed something in the device
> > tree to key off of.  Freescale has something similar (i.e.
> > MPC8572DS-CAMP), so I chose to follow their example.  I'd be happy to
> > replace it with a boolean property.  Any objection to just using
> > "amp"?
> 
> Bit too short, I think.  I'd suggest either spelling out
> 'asymmetric-multiprocessor' or 'cooperative-partition' (a more
> accurate term, IMO).

I could be wrong, but I thought the A stands for Asynchronous, not
Asymmetric.  I thought Asymmetric means that different types of tasks
run on the secondary processors, as on the Cell.  Anyway, going with
'cooperative-partition' would avoid that confusion.

Shaggy
-- 
Dave Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center