Hi,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > switch (c->processor_id & PRID_REV_MASK) {
> > case PRID_REV_LOONGSON2E:
> > + c->cputype = CPU_LOONGSON2;
> > + __cpu_name[cpu] = "ICT Loongson-2E";
> > set_elf_platform(cpu, "loongson2e");
> > break;
> > case PRID_REV_LOONGSON2F:
> > + c->cputype = CPU_LOONGSON2;
> > + __cpu_name[cpu] = "ICT Loongson-2F";
> > set_elf_platform(cpu, "loongson2f");
>
> I have mixed feelings about the Loongson-2 name change. On one side it's
> clearly better to have 2E and 2F instead of 2 V0.2 and 2 V0.3, and it
> should have been like that since the beginning. That said changing that
> now is kind of breaking the userland. I know that it would break debian
> installer support for example, though that should not be a real problem
> as we ship the installer with a given kernel version. I don't know if
> there are other usages that can cause a problem. Any opinion from
> others?
Changing it would break also GCC's -march=native detection. So NACK.
A.
