On 30.08.2013, at 15:26, 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.
Well, we could just manually add a sensible fw_name field to every class. There aren't all that many, no? Worst case we follow the exact same pattern that you were suggesting in code, just that we manually put the names in the classes :). At the end of the day, I would think this makes the code easier to understand. Alex
