> -----Original Message----- > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:19 PM > To: Wang Dongsheng-B40534 > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Kumar Gala; Zhao Chenhui-B35336; linuxppc- > d...@lists.ozlabs.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/85xx: add hardware automatically enter > altivec idle state > > On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 22:13 -0500, Wang Dongsheng-B40534 wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:39 AM > > > To: Wang Dongsheng-B40534 > > > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Kumar Gala; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/85xx: add hardware automatically > > > enter altivec idle state > > > > > > It just seems wrong to have an ad-hoc mechanism for running > > > core-specific code when we have cputable... If we really need this, > > > maybe we should add a "cpu_setup_late" function pointer. > > > > > > With your patch, when does the power management register get set > > > when hot plugging a cpu? > > > > > Um.. I don't deal with this situation. I will fix it. > > __setup/restore_cpu_e6500 looks good. But only bootcpu call > __setup_cpu_e6500, not on each cpu. > > I think this is a bug. > > Other CPUs call __restore_cpu_e6500. > No, there is bootcore of secondary thread, and other cores of first thread call __restore_cpu_e6500. This flow is correct?
> > > > > As for the PVR check, the upstream kernel doesn't need to care > > > > > about rev1, so knowing it's an e6500 is good enough. > > > > > > > > > But AltiVec idle & PW20 cannot work on rev1 platform. > > > > We didn't have to deal with it? > > > > > > Upstream does not run on rev1. > > > > > :), But already have customers in the use of rev1. > > Why we don't need to care about that? > > rev1 is not production-qualified. Those customers are supposed to only > be using rev1 for evaluation and early development. It's not that we > don't care about rev1 now (we have the SDK for that) but that we won't > care about it long-term and don't want to have to carry around a bunch of > baggage for it. Some of the workarounds are pretty nasty (especially A- > 006198). > Thanks. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev