On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Steven J. Hill wrote:
> From: "Steven J. Hill" <Steven.Hill@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The 1074K is a multiprocessing coherent processing system (CPS) based
> on modified 74K cores. This patch makes the 1074K an actual unique
> CPU type, instead of a 74K derivative, which it is not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steven J. Hill <Steven.Hill@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c b/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> index 13b549a..7184363 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> @@ -1106,9 +1106,10 @@ static void probe_pcache(void)
> case CPU_34K:
> case CPU_74K:
> case CPU_1004K:
> + case CPU_1074K:
> case CPU_INTERAPTIV:
> case CPU_PROAPTIV:
> - if (current_cpu_type() == CPU_74K)
> + if ((c->cputype == CPU_74K) || (c->cputype == CPU_1074K))
> alias_74k_erratum(c);
> if ((read_c0_config7() & (1 << 16))) {
> /* effectively physically indexed dcache,
Hmm, wouldn't it make sense to avoid the repeated condition check and
make it:
case CPU_74K:
case CPU_1074K:
alias_74k_erratum(c);
/* Fall through. */
case CPU_M14KC:
case CPU_M14KEC:
case CPU_24K:
case CPU_34K:
case CPU_INTERAPTIV:
case CPU_PROAPTIV:
if ((read_c0_config7() & (1 << 16))) {
/* effectively physically indexed dcache,
or suchlike instead? Also why `c->cputype == CPU_74K' rather than
`current_cpu_type() == CPU_74K'?
Maciej
