On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:40:21AM +0100, Marcin Nowakowski wrote: > On 13.03.2017 18:08, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > On 03/13/2017 06:33 AM, Marcin Nowakowski wrote: > > > Since the introduction of GENERIC_CPU_AUTOPROBE > > > (https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/15395/) we've got 2 very similarily > > > named headers: cpu-features.h and cpufeature.h. > > > Since the latter is used by all platforms that implement > > > GENERIC_CPU_AUTOPROBE functionality, it's better to rename the MIPS-specific > > > cpu-features.h. > > > > > > Marcin Nowakowski (2): > > > MIPS: mach-rm: Remove recursive include of cpu-feature-overrides.h > > > MIPS: rename cpu-features.h -> cpucaps.h > > > > That's a lot of churn that could cause some good headaches in > > backporting stable changes affecting cpu-feature-overrides.h. > > > > Can we just do the cpu-features.h -> cpucaps.h rename and keep > > cpu-feature-overrides.h around? > > That's of course possible, but I think it would make the naming quite > confusing as well, as it would be very unclear for any reader as to why a > 'cpu-feature-overrides' overrides 'cpucaps'. > > I've looked at the change history of these files and most receive very > little updates (which is hardly surprising given the changes are done mostly > during initial integration of a new cpu or soon after), and none of the > changes in those files were marked for stable. I think it's safe to assume > that this pattern is not likely to change, would you agree? I've noticed the same pattern - and it's a little concerning. Not adding values for later features means the'll probably be runtime detected resulting in a bigger, slower kernel. Ralf
