Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] powerpc: Add Power12 architected mode
Mahesh J Salgaonkar <[email protected]> Tue, 4 Aug 2026 11:30:11 +0530
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2026-08-04 00:47:49 Tue, Amit Machhiwal wrote: > On 2026/08/03 09:27 PM, Mahesh Salgaonkar wrote: > > From: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <[email protected]> > > > > PVR value of 0x0f000008 means we are arch v3.2 compliant (i.e. > > Power12). This is used by phyp and kvm when booting as a pseries guest > > to detect the presence of new Power12 features and to enable the > > appropriate hwcap and facility bits. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Mahesh Salgaonkar <[email protected]> > > Tested-by: Praveen K Pandey <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Nikhil Kumar Singh <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h | 1 + > > arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/cputable.h | 1 + > > arch/powerpc/kernel/cpu_specs_book3s_64.h | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_init.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h > > index f4991d10d89ec..cd025c7225ee7 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h > > @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ extern unsigned int boot_cpu_node_count; > > > > #define OV1_PPC_3_00 0x80 /* set if we support PowerPC 3.00 */ > > #define OV1_PPC_3_1 0x40 /* set if we support PowerPC 3.1 */ > > +#define OV1_PPC_3_2 0x20 /* set if we support PowerPC 3.2 */ > > Minor: OV1_PPC_3_1 and OV1_PPC_3_2 use extra tabs relative to OV1_PPC_3_00. > This is pre-existing style inconsistency in the file (not introduced by > this patch) but new additions should match the surrounding code. Please > consider aligning them. This is bit tricky. Prior to 3.0 the ISA versions were 2.05, 2.06, 2.07 and so on and pre-existing style did make sense. But it looks like from 3.1 the style changed may be for a reason because it can not be written as 3.10 which may create more confusiton. Hence, I plan to stick with the new style which is introduced from 3.1. Thanks, -Mahesh.