[PATCH 06/11] ARM: cortex-a5: add HWCAP_VFPv4D16 to proc info structure

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:05:01AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:22:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:17:36PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 05:55:50PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > The Cortex-A5 implements VFPv4D16, so add this to the hwcaps for this
> > > > processor.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S |    2 +-
> > > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
> > > > index b22d98d..8eba506 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7.S
> > > > @@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ cpu_elf_name:
> > > >  __v7_ca5mp_proc_info:
> > > >  	.long	0x410fc050
> > > >  	.long	0xff0ffff0
> > > > -	__v7_proc __v7_ca5mp_setup
> > > > +	__v7_proc __v7_ca5mp_setup, HWCAP_VFPv4D16
> > > 
> > > Is VFPv4 a superset of VFPv3?  If so, should we also include
> > > HWCAP_VFPv3D16 (and what about HWCAP_VFP)?
> > >
> > 
> > Actually, it looks like this shouldn't be declared statically at all, since the
> > kernel have not have VFP support compiled in. Rather, the vfp code will detect
> > the capability and adjust elf_hwcap at runtime.
> 
> Hah, yes, quite right.  My bad.

I'll fix it for v2.

As for the D16 stuff, I've had a better idea [need to check with the tools
guys]. Rather than waste two bits for VFPv4 and VFPv4D16, it should probably
be something like:

VFPv3    : HWCAP_VFPv3
VFPv3D16 : HWCAP_VFPv3 | HWCAP_VFPv3D16
VFPv4    : HWCAP_VFPv3 | HWCAP_VFPv4
VFPv4D16 : HWCAP_VFPv3 | HWCAP_VFPv3D16 | HWCAP_VFPv4

Will