[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-14 08:03    [W:0.097 / U:1.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site