From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <38D29F6F.4B425B09@email.sps.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:11:11 -0600
From: "Richard Hendricks" <ra6353@email.sps.mot.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Mimms <alanm@unforgettable.com>
CC: Geir Frode Raanes <geirfrs@invalid.ed.ntnu.no>,
        linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: What is the catch with IDMA on MPC860?
References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003171722430.93013-100000@invalid.ed.ntnu.no> <20000317.17233800@alanm.penguinpowered.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>


Alan Mimms wrote:
>
> Regarding the "where does the manual say that the performance stinks"
> comment: even though people like Richard are VERY forthcoming with
> "issues" with chips (THANKS Richard), I doubt a company like MOT will
> EVER admit in a manual or other official document they built something
> that stinks even a little bit.  See the MPC801 for an example of this
> where virtually EVERYTHING about the chip stinks (including the crappy
> inaccurate manual) and nothing is ever said in written form to that
> effect.  (For those unused to my cynical style, I love MOT and my
> company has even made a bunch of money selling devices built on the
> MPC801.  But they are NOT perfect - as I'm sure Richard and numerous
> will attest - and they will rarely admit it in writing.)

I think this issue is covered quite well in the boilerplate at the
beginning of the MPC823 manual.

"Motorola makes no warranty, representation or guarantee regarding
the suitability of its products for any particular purpose..."

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/