From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from puffin.external.hp.com (puffin.external.hp.com [192.25.206.4]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2533D482A for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:39:29 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200107112038.OAA07896@puffin.external.hp.com> To: Paul Bame Cc: Richard Hirst , Charles Boone , parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: Problem installing .9 iso image on C240 In-Reply-To: Message from Paul Bame of "Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:23:33 MDT." Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:38:08 -0600 From: Grant Grundler List-ID: Paul Bame wrote: > I don't know that a 64-bit kernel buys you much on a C240 -- am I mistaken? I think not. I thought about making the same comment since in general wide-mode just runs 2-5% slower. But some apps could take advantage of the wider words for substantial perf gains...but since we don't support 64-bit apps (yet) and only a few isolated places in the kernel would benefit (eg cksum'ing code), I don't see 64-bit kernel a "must have" for C240. > = > PDC on the C240 (and similar C-models of that generation) only > = > support PDC calls in "narrow" (ie 32-bit) mode. Sounds like the decision > = > to install 32 vs 64-bit depends on the PDC capabilities bit. > = > Can anyone offhand confirm/deny? > > Yes, palo asks the firmware whether one or both of 32&64-bit OSs will > run on the box. Cxxx says 32 bit only. If both are possible, palo > chooses 32-bit for now. Ok - thanks! And I think that's fine in general. Someone with a specific need for 64-bit ops can build/install a 64-bit kernel after the fact. Someday we might have a real 64-bit userspace and it might be interesting to get pickier about install support for PA2.0 CPU's. grant Grant Grundler parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker +1.408.447.7253