[U-Boot] [PATCH] 86xx: Update CPU info output on bootup

[Peter Tyser]

On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 13:01 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Peter Tyser wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 20:13 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Peter Tyser wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> CPU:   8641D, Version: 2.1, (0x80900121)
> >>> Core:  E600 Core 0, Version: 0.2, (0x80040202)
> >>
> >> Since you are touching things here.. mind fixing the Version print.
> >> Its clearly not Version 0.2
> >
> > Will do.
> >
> > While we're discussing it I had 2 other questions:
> > 1. Can anyone at Freescale give a hint about how to tell the  
> > difference
> > between the 8640 and 8641?
> 
> why do you need to?  If I'm not mistaken the 8640 is identical to 8641  
> except for freq and maybe the package.

It would be nice for aesthetic reasons only.  My understanding was that
the 8640 was just a die shrunk 8641 and that there was no functional
difference as you mention.

> 2. Does anyone know how the PVR in IBM's 750 line of processors is
> > parsed?  I didn't see it in 750 processor datasheets and wanted to
> > update the following line of code in cpu/74xx_7xx.c while updating the
> > 86xx:
> > - printf ("%s v%d.%d", str, (pvr >> 8) & 0xFF, pvr & 0xFF);
> >
> > The 86xx and 74xx processors all use the convention below but I wanted
> > to make sure it wouldn't break any 750-based cpus when changing it:
> > - printf ("%s v%d.%d", str, (pvr >> 8) & 0xF, pvr & 0xFF);
> 
> take a look at the linux kernel tree (arch/powerpc/kernel/setup- 
> common.c)  (I think it does the right thing for 750)

Linux seems to match U-Boot for the 750 PVR, but there are some
suspicious question marks in the comments in setup-common.c for the 750
PVR settings which make me wonder...

In any case I'll just modify the 86xx for now.

Thanks,
Peter