From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59216 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PSspb-0005SY-7g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:59:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PSspa-0005pT-8A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:59:51 -0500 Received: from mail.mc.net ([209.172.128.24]:37984) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PSspa-0005pL-3E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:59:50 -0500 Message-ID: <4D08D9AF.4010801@mc.net> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:07:27 -0600 From: Bob Breuer MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: sparc OBP psr value References: <4D04149C.2020709@mc.net> <4D051ECE.509@mc.net> In-Reply-To: <4D051ECE.509@mc.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel Forget this. My test was flawed because I still wasn't comparing apples to apples. I was comparing the pre-bootloader state to the post-bootloader state, and it seems that OBP, even on a real machine, shows all the registers as zero before it runs any program. However, I still think there's something wrong with the RT625 version somewhere that causes it to show as a 605e in the banner, but I don't have the real thing to compare against. What I do have for comparison is a 150MHz hyperSparc which shows up as an RT626. Bob