From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA18748 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:33:42 -0600 To: Alex deVries Cc: parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com, lamont@security.hp.com Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] 'architected'? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:06:38 EDT." <37B9CEDE.9F09087E@thepuffingroup.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:34:58 -0600 From: LaMont Jones Message-Id: <19990818183458.A35A818708@security.hp.com> List-ID: > So, I've been rereading some docs lately, and am wondering what > 'architected' really is. > Here's an example, dug up by Dave Kennedy. This is on page 3, under the > heading '2. PDC Procedures' in pdc.pdf: > "The architected operation of a module (including execution of a PDC) > must not require the use of any non-architected PDC procedures. It must > also not require the use of any non-architected options in architected > PDC produces." I don't have the documents in front of me, so forgive me if I get a name or 6 wrong... The PDC Procedures Document (and anything with the same cover page, such as the Generic Modules Document) comprise what used to be called the "Architecture Control Document." An "architected" thing is discussed in those documents, un-architected things generally are not. Just to make matters interesting, you will see mention in the documents to SV (software version specific), and HV (hardware version specific) features. The paragraph you cite indicates that hardware (modules) cannot require that an OS author perform HV PDC (arg0>=128) calls (or other funky stuff like DIAG instructions, or poking magic addresses not spelled out in the architecture document) in order to use the hardware in the system. In this case, "use" pretty much means anything that generic OS software needs to do with the module to initialize it. In other words, the bus walk. Sadly, certain hardware is not quite compliant with the architecture, in that it violates the very paragraph you cite. Most notably (from our recent discussions), the bus walk of the 7[235]0 requires magic knowledge of where things are and how to poke them nicely. Does that help any? lamont