Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:06:16 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] SiS55x, another x86 CPU |
| |
> >Your attachment seems to be windows line end damaged. > > Strange, Pine usually do it right with file attachments.
It likely was added on some Windows system.
> (what is "windows line end damaged"?)
It used MSDOS style \r\n line terminators instead of Unix style \n.
> > >Also the changes are so small that it's not worth adding a CONFIG > >for it. Just add it unconditionally. > > I was not trying to invent anything. It is almost a copy of the UMC > CPU, except that it is 586 code.
Then the comment applies to that one too.
> > >And hardcoding the cache size for all of SiS seems a bit extreme. > >What happens when SiS ever brings out another part with different > >caches? Ideally figure out some way to detect this particular CPU > >and only use 8 KB only for that. Alternatively ignore it (there's > >nothing really in the kernel that uses the cache sizes anyways) > > In that case the cache could be deleted. > > One annoying thing is that the "model name" in /proc/cpuinfo is > written as "00/55" instead of "SiS55x" when the CPU is not detected.
Is that really so bad?
> > The worst problem is that an unknown CPU writes: > printk(KERN_ERR "CPU: Your system may be unstable.\n");
Perhaps it would be better to just remove that printk. Its truth seems doubtful.
> and the SiS55x is not unstable. Not until now at least and it has been > on the market for 5 years. > > Maybe the message could be changed to something less catastrophic when > CPU is unknown.
Yes that would be a good idea.
-Andi
| |