On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:51:42PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>+ external-control;
> >>
> >>Really?
> >
> >Well, is anybody actually using eciwx/ecowx?
>
> That's not the point -- the device tree should only
> say "external-control" if the CPU actually supports
> it; AFAIK, that's 601 only.
I wonder whether you are mixing up external control
and direct-store segments (the "T" bit in segment registers).
>From my docs, external control has been supported by many
processors, up to many variants of the 750 and even 7440/7450.
Now I've never seen any hardware which could make use of these
instructions (you'd need a device on the processor bus that
reacts to the special bus cycles generated by the ec[io]wx
instructions, since no host bridge I've ever met handles them.
I've not seen support for external control in the Linux kernel
either (you'd need to setup the EAR SPR and probablly to modify
it on context switches).
OTOH, the direct-store segments were only implemented in the
original 601, 603 (not 603e) and 604 processors (can't remember
about the 604e) and even then the 601 had special features
in this area.
>
> >>+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> >>+ device_type = "pci";
> >>+ compatible = "prep";
> >>
> >>Is that specific enough?
> >
> >On the MVME5100, actually the mapping is more CHRP like, and PCI I/O
> >space is smaller and at a higher address.
>
> Right, so it's not; "compatible" should specify the
> model of PCI host bridge, instead.
Well, the PCI host bridge is reprogrammable in a very flexible way
and and I actually wrote a boot loader that reprograms it the
way I wanted address space to look like. I shall send it to
you in a PM (it is quite big, it includes an x86 emulator
which is able to initialize the VGA PMC modules I have by
running the BIOS).
Regards,
Gabriel
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
