From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1637C4332F for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:24:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229736AbiLPWYI (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:24:08 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53346 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229469AbiLPWYG (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:24:06 -0500 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF1662A703 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 14:24:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BFE1B81E2C for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2294C433F0; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:24:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1671229442; bh=vWyTChF9TwDDk0WZDplapmkRwworn0IhwYAjtOOf+HI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VhId9RCwx0o6BIUUKNNpCYsiCZTXnrltQNzrTl/Ftd4Klkn+1bOBPosAosRsqzd7w SmJcY6ezwecIBtw8ne6L5Fnm1ARAEG4lPrrNVC1PFTd4RqUphMzqBKSB9S/GY4tOw5 8lix3BG86bHAwVQ05sdJdQi0s5aFewL9i8Hh+3KR8WCuRz8Du0d4SKnpWsn1SpXtL2 Hf4AVwPPIcKpNxB2krUNN5JUg7LjSaxQjaXO1M6GbdResGIN4TgA/JuwjHlwBm5MVD iH5ZT4tslMouVNxaqzaxAgNNgOVvhVLNXH7LbOD9hVuPBRmYNO98BqziSlJZaSQWXq j2upcgQjzkihA== Received: by pali.im (Postfix) id D741F711; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 23:23:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 23:23:59 +0100 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Christophe Leroy , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc/64: Set default CPU in Kconfig Message-ID: <20221216222359.74i6otxszwanf76y@pali> References: <3fd60c2d8a28668a42b766b18362a526ef47e757.1670420281.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <20221215204202.mbw2ij4ou7t2ttpv@pali> <20221216191543.GE25951@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221216191543.GE25951@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 16 December 2022 13:15:43 Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Anyway, do you know what is e500mc64 core? I was trying to find some > > information about it, but it looks like some unreleased freescale core > > which predates e5500 core. > > It looks that way yes. It was submitted at > > and committed as . It looks as if > it was based on the e500mc core, while e5500 is a new core (or > significantly different anyway). Just a two old Freescale PDF files which I found and mention e500mc-64: https://web.archive.org/web/20121215191707/http://www.freescale.com/files/ftf_2010/Americas/FTF10_ENT_F0453.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120905164305/http://www.freescale.com/files/ftf_2010/Americas/FTF10_ENT_F0273.pdf On page 6 in both documents is described P5020 with e500mc-64 cores. But production version of P5020 contains e5500 cores. Some other documents are also on nxp.com website: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22e500mc-64%22+site%3Anxp.com https://www.nxp.com/files-static/training/doc/MULTICORE_MORE.pdf https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/supporting-information/WBNR_FTF10_NET_F0707.pdf https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/supporting-information/WBNR_FTF10_NET_F0704.pdf > > ISA (without extensions like altivec) seems > > to be same for e500mc64, e5500 and e6500 cores and difference is only > > pipeline definitions in gcc config files. So if my understanding is > > correct then kernel binary compiled with any of these -mcpu= flag should > > work on any of those cores. Just for mismatches core binary will not be > > optimized for speed. > > It appears the E500MC64 never made it outside of FSL, so it is best not > to use it at all, imo. Yes, it really makes sense to not use e500mc64 flag. Maybe gcc documentation could be updated to mention this fact? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41EE8C4332F for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:25:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NYkDt3Dhkz3btb for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 09:25:02 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=VhId9RCw; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=2604:1380:4641:c500::1; helo=dfw.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=pali@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=VhId9RCw; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NYkCp6zk8z2yHc for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 09:24:06 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 701B66215E; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:24:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2294C433F0; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:24:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1671229442; bh=vWyTChF9TwDDk0WZDplapmkRwworn0IhwYAjtOOf+HI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VhId9RCwx0o6BIUUKNNpCYsiCZTXnrltQNzrTl/Ftd4Klkn+1bOBPosAosRsqzd7w SmJcY6ezwecIBtw8ne6L5Fnm1ARAEG4lPrrNVC1PFTd4RqUphMzqBKSB9S/GY4tOw5 8lix3BG86bHAwVQ05sdJdQi0s5aFewL9i8Hh+3KR8WCuRz8Du0d4SKnpWsn1SpXtL2 Hf4AVwPPIcKpNxB2krUNN5JUg7LjSaxQjaXO1M6GbdResGIN4TgA/JuwjHlwBm5MVD iH5ZT4tslMouVNxaqzaxAgNNgOVvhVLNXH7LbOD9hVuPBRmYNO98BqziSlJZaSQWXq j2upcgQjzkihA== Received: by pali.im (Postfix) id D741F711; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 23:23:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 23:23:59 +0100 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc/64: Set default CPU in Kconfig Message-ID: <20221216222359.74i6otxszwanf76y@pali> References: <3fd60c2d8a28668a42b766b18362a526ef47e757.1670420281.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <20221215204202.mbw2ij4ou7t2ttpv@pali> <20221216191543.GE25951@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221216191543.GE25951@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Friday 16 December 2022 13:15:43 Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Anyway, do you know what is e500mc64 core? I was trying to find some > > information about it, but it looks like some unreleased freescale core > > which predates e5500 core. > > It looks that way yes. It was submitted at > > and committed as . It looks as if > it was based on the e500mc core, while e5500 is a new core (or > significantly different anyway). Just a two old Freescale PDF files which I found and mention e500mc-64: https://web.archive.org/web/20121215191707/http://www.freescale.com/files/ftf_2010/Americas/FTF10_ENT_F0453.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120905164305/http://www.freescale.com/files/ftf_2010/Americas/FTF10_ENT_F0273.pdf On page 6 in both documents is described P5020 with e500mc-64 cores. But production version of P5020 contains e5500 cores. Some other documents are also on nxp.com website: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22e500mc-64%22+site%3Anxp.com https://www.nxp.com/files-static/training/doc/MULTICORE_MORE.pdf https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/supporting-information/WBNR_FTF10_NET_F0707.pdf https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/supporting-information/WBNR_FTF10_NET_F0704.pdf > > ISA (without extensions like altivec) seems > > to be same for e500mc64, e5500 and e6500 cores and difference is only > > pipeline definitions in gcc config files. So if my understanding is > > correct then kernel binary compiled with any of these -mcpu= flag should > > work on any of those cores. Just for mismatches core binary will not be > > optimized for speed. > > It appears the E500MC64 never made it outside of FSL, so it is best not > to use it at all, imo. Yes, it really makes sense to not use e500mc64 flag. Maybe gcc documentation could be updated to mention this fact?