From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:31:22 -0800 From: Eugene Surovegin To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: IBM 440GX, Ocotea... Message-ID: <20040323183122.GA6724@gate.ebshome.net> References: <4057CCD40003780D@mssbzhh-int.msg.bluewin.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4057CCD40003780D@mssbzhh-int.msg.bluewin.ch> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:02:31PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > we are currently trying to understand which PPC Linux > kernel tree is best suited for the IBM 440GX on the > Ocotea eval board. We would like to support the 405GP > and 440GP as well. linuxppc-2.4 > > The Ocotea 440GX board seems to be supported in the > "linuxppc_2_4_devel" tree. Is this board configuration > up-to-date and still maintained? unlikely. linuxpp_2_4_devel is officialy "dead" tree :). > A more up-to-date implementation seems to be in the > "linuxppc-2.4" tree. Are there some open issues or known > problems? New UIC mode isn't supported yet. Work on GigE support is still not finished yet. > I realized that the L2 cache has been disabled > recently: > > $ cat arch/ppc/platforms/ocotea.c > ... > /* Disable L2-Cache due to hardware issues */ > ibm440gx_l2c_disable(); > > Does this mean that the L2 cache is unusable on current > revisions of the chip? [That's why we would like to use > this chip.] Yes, we found problems with current chip revisions (A & B). Ask your IBM contact for more information. > Does this tree support the 405GP and 440GP as well? Yes. > Could > anybody make some comments on the stability? We currently > use the "linuxppc_2_4_devel" tree for these processors > with little problems. I'm using linuxppc-2.4 as of 2.4.21 in production for 440GP, 440GX, 405GPr, 405EP based hardware. Eugene. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/