On 08/30/2013 11:26 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 30.08.2013 15:21, schrieb Alexander Graf: >> >> On 16.08.2013, at 00:35, Andreas Färber wrote: >> >>> Instead of relying on cpu_model, obtain the device tree node label >>> per CPU. Use DeviceClass::fw_name when available. This implicitly >>> resolves HOST@0 node labels for those CPUs through inheritance. >>> >>> Whenever DeviceClass::fw_name is not available, derive it from the CPU's >>> type name and fill it in for that class with a "PowerPC," prefix for >>> PAPR compliance. >> >> Could we just mandate the fw_name field to always be set for all classes >> instead? > > Sure, we can assert it. But we would then need to set fw_name for the > various 970 families at least, which I have been using with pseries in > the past. Cell and POWER6 are TODO so I'm not concerned about them. Not > sure about RS64 that Alexey mentioned - I wouldn't be able to test. > Would be bad to regress and abort with CPU models that were working okay > before.
If we generated fw_name as it would have been done by the current helpers, how would anything regress? -- Alexey
