Subject: Re: Resend: [PATCH] oprofile support for Power 5++

From: Olof Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:51:40 -0500

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 04:33:48PM -0500, Maynard Johnson wrote:
> Will Schmidt wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:31 -0500, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > 
> >>>>Does it make more sense to call this "ppc64/power5+rev3"?  
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>>This is a change to support new counter setup for oprofile.  It may be the
> >>>same if there is a revision 4 or 5 etc.  So since the internal name was ++
> I have no idea if there will be a revision 4, etc, but I'm assuming the 
> behavior would be the same as rev 3.  So I'm not in favor of changing 

The way the cputable patch is now, the rev 4 would match the base revision
anyway.  Maybe it makes more sense to make PVR xxxx01xx and xxxx02xx
explicitly match the old power5+, and make everything else match power5++?

I guess it all depends on the chance of IBM doing another major rev of
power5. Given it's current phase of product maturity I suppose it's not
all that likely. Doing it this way saves yet another cputable entry as
well, since it would otherwise mean two added entries instead of one.

-Olof