From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:31:56 -0700 From: Andrew May To: Matt Porter Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: very minor 405GP and 405GPr PCI difference Message-ID: <20021008173156.GA21980@acmay.homeip.net> References: <20021001052121.GV10265@zax> <3D995EC0.2000500@elsoft.ch> <20021002014219.GF1848@zax> <3D9AA452.5070004@elsoft.ch> <20021003011233.GC1102@zax> <20021006052314.GG27824@acmay.homeip.net> <20021006183120.A17129@home.com> <20021008041419.GF32555@zax> <20021008052136.GA26470@acmay.homeip.net> <20021008075609.A21266@home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20021008075609.A21266@home.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:21:36PM -0700, Andrew May wrote: > > I think we are all more or less in agreement. Let me review a couple > scenarios so we all recall why we have a few different methodologies. > Here are the basic systems: .... > We can (and already do) support all three methodologies. The > important thing is to keep supporting them and make it easy > to handle case #3 on 4xx stuff. Yes, I think we agree on this, but I am not sure it is that easy to currently handle case #1 on a 4xx system. Not too hard, but I did have to pull out some code to get things to work. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/