On Friday 03 August 2007, Valentine Barshak wrote: > >> Should the 440GRX PVR additions be done in a separate patch? Or is the > >> PVR and cpu features truly the only difference between 440EPx and > >> 440GRx? > > > > I think it makes sense to add the 440GRx with this patchset too. The > > 440GRx is a subset of the 440EPx, missing some stuff like USB, FPU. And > > the AMCC Rainier 440GRx eval board is a subset of the Sequoia eval board. > > So no new board specific sources should be necessary to support the > > Rainier, just a different defconfig file. > > > > Best regards, > > Stefan > > I have a Rainier 440GRx board and the PVR is equal to the 440EPx one > (0x200008D0). This has to be handled somehow, since the > PPC_FEATURE_HAS_FPU flag should *not* be set for 440GRx. > I'm really not sure how though. Any ideas are greatly appreciated :) > Is it a h/w bug?
Depends on interpretation. IIRC currently the same die is used for 440EPx and 440GRx. I could be wrong here though and it is just a bug in the chip. But anyway we should support this somehow. Could be that I missed this in the current 440GRx (Rainier) arch/ppc support too. I have to admit, that no clever solution comes to my mind right away though. Best regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
