| To: | "Alistair Lambie" <alambie@wellington.sgi.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: A pointed question about endianness... |
| From: | "William J. Earl" <wje@fir.engr.sgi.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:56:58 -0700 |
| Cc: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@mailhost.uni-koblenz.de>, adevries@engsoc.carleton.ca (Alex deVries), linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com, ralf@Julia.DE, shaver@engsoc.carleton.ca |
| In-reply-to: | <9706161530.ZM15792@windy.wellington.sgi.com> |
| References: | <199706160017.CAA23535@informatik.uni-koblenz.de> <ralf@mailhost.uni-koblenz.de> <9706161530.ZM15792@windy.wellington.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com |
Alistair Lambie writes:
> On Jun 16, 12:21pm, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > Btw, question to the SGI gurus - is the kernel byteorder of SGI machines
> > be reconfigurable?
> >
>
> As the guys in the US won't be in for a while yet.....
>
> My belief is that Indy's were designed to require a PROM change. I have also
> heard that there was a problem running NT that required some mods to the
> boards.
> These were never released to the field.
>
> So the answer is yes, but in practice no!
...
Indy never ran anything little-endian, although the memory controller
could in principle support it. The rest of the system probably would not
work correctly. As far as I know, only the MIPS Magnum systems really
work both ways. (They actually work better little-endian, but most were shipped
big-endian.)
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: A pointed question about endianness..., William J. Earl |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: A pointed question about endianness..., Ralf Baechle |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: A pointed question about endianness..., Alistair Lambie |
| Next by Thread: | Re: A pointed question about endianness..., William J. Earl |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |