Justin Carlson wrote: > > I still would rather stick to the switch style of doing things in the future, > though, because it's a bit more flexible; if you've got companies that fix > errata without stepping PrID revisions or some such, then the table's going to > have some strange special cases that don't quite fit. > Ahh, in that case I suppose the mips_cpu_config function pointer in that entry should not be NULL. Instead it should modify the mips_cpu struct to fix whatever quirks there. Because this function is associated with a particular CPU, this solution is probably cleaner than having all the quirk fixes embedded inside a case block. > > Luckily, in the end, you have to convince saner people than me. :) > Or I should wake up from hallucination. :-) Jun
