From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: Broadcom BCM94306 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Gabriel Paubert Cc: Segher Boessenkool , linas@austin.ibm.com, valvoline , linuxppc-dev list In-Reply-To: <20040116195406.GA25566@iram.es> References: <20040114161107.GM2658@adapter.n0skillz.org> <20040114181350.B40506@forte.austin.ibm.com> <70D6BF86-473D-11D8-A8C3-000A95A4DC02@kernel.crashing.org> <20040115115023.GA12001@iram.es> <20040116195406.GA25566@iram.es> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1074309942.8359.24.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:25:43 +1100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > Anyway, since you seem to have ties inside IBM ;-), you might > know why they do not even give a list of differences of the > 970 implementation. I know from another source that the 970 does > not have BATs, but supports large pages with a size of 16MB. Yup, it's more/less a POWER4 in this regard (which is probably as badly documented :) I'll check out the status of public specs, I _think_ that there is some doc in the process of beeing cleaned up & declassified for this chip, but I'm not 100% sure at this point. > Now the fact that the 970 does not support backwards-endian is a very > good thing. From time to time (although it has been less frequent > recently) somebody suggest on the list that Linux/PPC switches to the > dark side of the endianness. The fact that some processors don't support > it will be a killer argument. Hehe, you know, there isn't much risk that we take such a patch in the first place anyway :) Ben. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/