Re: 2.4.0-test3

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Gabriel Paubert wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Takashi Oe wrote:

quoted

601's BAT doesn't have G bit.  Maybe that's the problem?

No 601 BATs are completely different, see the source code in the early
init. The valid bits in not in the same (BATL or BATU), the size (limited
to 8 Mb) and protection encoding are different (only one valid bit, not Vs
and Vu, and WIMGxPP are coded as in the PTE). I think the G bit is
ignored.

Yes, that's very true ....  Are the following codes incorrect for 601?

[from prepare_disp_BAT() in prom.c]

		/* 601 */
		addr &= 0xFF800000UL;
		RELOC(disp_BATU) = addr | (_PAGE_NO_CACHE | PP_RWXX) | 4;
		RELOC(disp_BATL) = addr | BL_8M | 0x40;

Previously, it had "_PAGE_GUARDED" for BATU, which I thought was
incorrect.


Takashi Oe


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/