On 01/22/2015 02:43 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 01/22/2015 02:08 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Markos Chandras wrote: >> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c b/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c >>>>> index 097fc8d14e42..a8fdf9685cad 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c >>>>> @@ -82,7 +82,9 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v) >>>>> seq_printf(m, "]\n"); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> - seq_printf(m, "isa\t\t\t: mips1"); >>>>> + seq_printf(m, "isa\t\t\t:"); >>>>> + if (!cpu_has_mips_r6) >>>>> + seq_printf(m, " mips1"); >>>> >>>> I think define `cpu_has_mips_r1' instead and use it here. It may turn >>>> out needed elsewhere too. We probably don't need a new `MIPS_CPU_ISA_I' >>>> bit at this stage so this could be: >> >> Typo here, I meant `cpu_has_mips_1' actually, sorry about that. >> >>> the change is simple enough and I see no reason to define the >>> cpu_has_mips_r1 at the moment. If we ever need to explicitly handle r1, >>> we can reconsider that. >> >> It's a matter of code clarity, good code is self-explanatory. Here the >> intent is to print `mips1' if it is supported. By avoiding the extra >> definition you're detaching the intent from what code says. Someone >> reading this code (who may not necessarily know the architecture documents >> by heart) has to scratch their head thinking: "why isn't `mips1' printed >> for R6, what the former has to do with the latter, and why is this case >> different to `mips2' and other ones that follow?" >> >> Whereas the intent is clear with this: >> >> #define cpu_has_mips_1 (!cpu_has_mips_r6) // Aha, `mips1' is there if no R6! >> >> if (cpu_has_mips_1) >> seq_printf(m, " mips1"); // Well, this is obvious... > > however, someone may wonder then why not have > > if (cpu_has_mips_1) > print mips1 > if (cpu_has_mips_2) > print mips2 > if (cpu_has_mips_3) > print mips3 > > and only care about mips1. oops that's already there. Then I guess your proposal makes the whole thing consistent indeed. -- markos
