[RFC] ppc32: Report chip version in common /proc/cpuinfo handling

[Kumar Gala]

On Mar 21, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:21:28AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
>  >
> > On Mar 21, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>  >
> > >On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:26:52PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
>  > >
>  > >>
>  > >> You asked me to look at doing the following.? I just want to make
> > >sure
>  > >> this is what we want to do (and call it).? I'm a little concerned
> > >that
>  > >> 'chip' is not necessary the right name in light of TSI10x and 
> MV64x60
>  > >> being described by ppc_sys in the future.
>  > >
>  > >"chip" or "chip(set)" or anything else is fine with me (I'm 
> horrible at
>  > > names).? But I don't like:
> > >
>  > >> +#if defined (CONFIG_85xx) || defined (CONFIG_83xx)
> > >> +???? if (cur_ppc_sys_spec->ppc_sys_name)
> > >> +???? ??????? seq_printf(m, "chip\t\t: %s\n",
> > >cur_ppc_sys_spec->ppc_sys_name);
> > >> +#endif
>  > >
>  > >ifdef'ing this.? If the field is set, we should print it.
>  >
> > The only reason this is ifdef'd is that cur_ppc_sys_spec does not
> > always exist on all platforms built.
>
> Oh boy, I sense an <asm-ppc/serial.h> in the making.  Please tell me
>  it's at least not possible that someone could stick an 85xx and an
>  MV64x60 together.  So we want the enum there to do sanity checking,
>  right?

It is not possible that this could happen, in the sense that you are 
using the MV64x60 as a chipset, not a PCI device or something bizarre.

- kumar