Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] PowerPC 440EPx: Sequoia board support

From: Valentine Barshak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:36:50 +0400

Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Thursday 02 August 2007, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:16:28 +0400
>>> +0400 +++ linux/arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c	2007-07-27
>>> 20:44:26.000000000 +0400 @@ -1132,6 +1132,42 @@
>>>  		.dcache_bsize		= 32,
>>>  		.platform		= "ppc440",
>>>  	},
>>> +	{ /* 440EPX  - with Security/Kasumi  */
>>> +		.pvr_mask		= 0xf0000fff,
>>> +		.pvr_value		= 0x200008D0,
>>> +		.cpu_name		= "440EPX - with Security/Kasumi",
>>> +		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_44X,
>>> +		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_BOOKE | PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU, /*
>>> 440EPX has an FPU */ +		.icache_bsize		= 32,
>>> +		.dcache_bsize		= 32,
>>> +	},
>>> +	{ /* 440EPX  - without Security/Kasumi  */
>>> +		.pvr_mask		= 0xf0000fff,
>>> +		.pvr_value		= 0x200008D4,
>>> +		.cpu_name		= "440EPX - no Security/Kasumi",
>>> +		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_44X,
>>> +		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_BOOKE | PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU, /*
>>> 440EPX has an FPU */ +		.icache_bsize		= 32,
>>> +		.dcache_bsize		= 32,
>>> +	},
>>> +	{ /* 440GRX  - with Security/Kasumi  */
>>> +		.pvr_mask		= 0xf0000fff,
>>> +		.pvr_value		= 0x200008D8,
>>> +		.cpu_name		= "440GRX - with Security/Kasumi",
>>> +		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_44X,
>>> +		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_BOOKE, /* 440GRX has no FPU */
>>> +		.icache_bsize		= 32,
>>> +		.dcache_bsize		= 32,
>>> +	},
>>> +	{ /* 440GRX  - without Security/Kasumi  */
>>> +		.pvr_mask		= 0xf0000fff,
>>> +		.pvr_value		= 0x200008DC,
>>> +		.cpu_name		= "440GRX - no Security/Kasumi",
>>> +		.cpu_features		= CPU_FTRS_44X,
>>> +		.cpu_user_features	= COMMON_USER_BOOKE, /* 440GRX has no FPU */
>>> +		.icache_bsize		= 32,
>>> +		.dcache_bsize		= 32,
>>> +	},
>> Should the 440GRX PVR additions be done in a separate patch?  Or is the
>> PVR and cpu features truly the only difference between 440EPx and
>> 440GRx?
> 
> I think it makes sense to add the 440GRx with this patchset too. The 440GRx is 
> a subset of the 440EPx, missing some stuff like USB, FPU. And the AMCC 
> Rainier 440GRx eval board is a subset of the Sequoia eval board. So no new 
> board specific sources should be necessary to support the Rainier, just a 
> different defconfig file.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefan

I have a Rainier 440GRx board and the PVR is equal to the 440EPx one 
(0x200008D0). This has to be handled somehow, since the 
PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU flag should *not* be set for 440GRx.
I'm really not sure how though. Any ideas are greatly appreciated :)
Is it a h/w bug?
Thanks,
Valentine.