On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:06, Marc Chidester <marcchides...@gmail.com> wrote: > It looks like the Rev D version of the 405EX chip without security > will be identified as a 405EXr, based on the values in the cpu_specs > table.
Yes, that is the case. The 405EX Rev D without security PVR matches an old 405EXr A/B with security, and hence the cpu_spec entries' pvr_mask values are no longer correct. > Is there an algorithm update needed or am I missing something? Perhaps add more cpu_spec table entries for the 405EX & 405EXr with pvr_mask = 0xffff000f ? _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
