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...
BTW, any chances to get smartmips support merged into your tree ?
Thanks
--
Franck
