Franck wrote:
2006/1/25, Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 03:32:22PM +0100, Franck wrote:
We have CPU_MIPS32_R1, CPU_MIPS32_R2, CPU_MIPS64_R1, CPU_MIPS64_R2.
Based on those we also define CPU_MIPS32, CPU_MIPS64, CPU_MIPSR1,
and CPU_MIPSR2 as short cuts.
hm I should have missed something, but what about CPUs which have
their own CPU_XXX (different form CPU_MIPS32_R[12]) and which are a
mips32-r2 compliant for example ? (I'm thinking of 4KSD for example)
The 4KSD is still a MIPS32 processor - just one with an ASE.
The real bug here - and what's causing your confusion - is that the
processor configuration is mixing up all the architecture variants
(MIPS I - IV, MIPS32 and MIPS64 R1/R2, weirdo variants ...) and the
processor types. Example: 4K, 4KE, 24K, 24KE, 34K, AMD Alchemy are all
MIPS32 (either R1 or R2). R4000, R4400, R4600 are all MIPS III. But
what we actually offer in the processor configuration is R4X00, MIPS32_R1,
OK. So the patch I sent to you 3 months ago that adds support for
4ks[cd] cpu and smartmips extension is wrong. It added new
CONFIG_CPU_4KS[CD] macro whereas it must have used MIPS32_R[12] macros
like Kevin suggested...
Not really. As we discussed at the time, the 4KSc is a superset of
MIPS32 which includes some, but not all MIPS32R2 features (plus other
stuff), and the 4KSd is a strict superset of MIPS32R2. So some additional
information is required to express the desired support. I was just pointing
out, in the case of the SWAB optimizations, that there was no need to invent
yet another way of describing MIPS32R2.
Regards,
Kevin K.
