| To: | "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: config option vs. run-time detection (the debate continues ...) |
| From: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> |
| Date: | Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:05:28 +0100 (MET) |
| Cc: | Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <01b001c092e5$58f6a8a0$0deca8c0@Ulysses> |
| Organization: | Technical University of Gdansk |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > The best method I know for post-R3000 CPUs is to > write and read back the CU1 bit of the Status register. > CPUs without an integrated FPU will not have a flip-flop > for the bit, and will read back a 0 even after writing a 1. > There was never any architectural requirement that > this be so, however, and this cannot be absolutely > guaranteed to work. If anyone has a counter-example, > however, I'd be interested in hearing about it. OK, then we may try to toggle CU1 and only if that succeeds check the FPU implementation id. Thanks for the point. -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available + |
| Previous by Date: | Re: config option vs. run-time detection (the debate continues ...), Maciej W. Rozycki |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Patch for Philips Nino..., Steven J. Hill |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: config option vs. run-time detection (the debate continues ...), Kevin D. Kissell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: config option vs. run-time detection (the debate continues ...), Florian Lohoff |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |