On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:19:40AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes: > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 06:41:43PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > >> The important part of this function is that it applies to non-embedded > >> CPUs, not that it also applies to the 601. We removed support for the > >> 601 anyway, so rename this function. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <faro...@linux.ibm.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > > > > Although, I wonder if "books_common" or something might be a better > > name, though. Admittedly, I don't think the "BookS" terminology > > existed at the time of most of these earlier CPUs. However, these > > days the majority of 7xx chips are probably in embedded applications, > > even if they weren't designed for an embedded chip line. > > The 'ne' in the original name was probably meant to signify > not-BookE. So non_booke perhaps would work? The thing with calling it > books_common is that we're using BookS only for the 970 and upwards and > this function applies to 6xx, 7xx, 74xx as well.
So, an informal server / embedded split is older than the "Book S" vs. "Book E" terminology, so it's a question of whether we want to apply the newer terminology to the older systems. As you say, that's arguably problematic for BookS, but it's equally troublesome for "not BookE": 40x and possibly 44x as well also predate the "Book E" terminology (and certainly don't meet even the earliest version of the Book E spec). However they are from the "embedded" branch of cpu models, and do not have the registers that the ne_601 function creates. Naming things is hard :/. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature