On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 13:11 -0700, Dan Malek wrote: > > There are many comments written about 8xx as various > behavior was discovered. Worse, some of these details > would be different among the different processor versions. > You need to be careful and test as many different part > versions as possible to ensure you have everything > covered..... then someone will find a part that doesn't > quite work, "fix" it, and break others :-) > > In this particular case, the PEM does state dcbst is treated > as a load, but from experience we know 8xx doesn't work > that way. Of course, since dcbst is a store operation, > you could argue that 8xx got it correct :-)
Hehe. Well, it's architecturally incorrect, as dcbst is not really a store operation in the sense that it doesn't modify the target cache line, and as such doesn't (mustn't) be covered by write access protection, shouldn't set DIRTY, etc... So I would argue that 8xx got it wrong either way :-) Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
