| To: | "Thomas Bogendoerfer" <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] malta4kec hang in calibrate_delay fix |
| From: | "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com> |
| Date: | Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:47:53 +0200 |
| Cc: | "yshi" <yang.shi@windriver.com>, <linux-mips@linux-mips.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <46DD1CD1.5040306@windriver.com> <006901c7eeda$d8049a50$10eca8c0@grendel> <1188901951.4106.16.camel@yshi.CORP> <006f01c7eee5$bbe77c60$10eca8c0@grendel> <20070904113325.GA6904@alpha.franken.de> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
> > In that case, your core is a 4Kc and not a 4KEc. The "r2" value in the
>
> does that mean all 4KEc must support MIPS32R2 ? TI claims to use
> an 4KEc core for their AR7/UR8 SoCs, but they only support MIPS32R1.
There are two main differences between the 4K and the 4KE: Write-back
caches and MIPS32R2. I honestly don't know if it's possible to synthesise
a 4KE so as to inhibit the MIPS32R2 features, but it would be a surprising
thing to do. I have no idea what TI actually does, but I could imagine,
hypothetically, a customer who had done a design based around the original
4K, and who upgraded it to the 4KE, deciding not to upgrade their chip-level
testing to cover the Release 2 features, and therefore not wanting to guarantee
them for their customers. These things happen. But, again, I have no idea what
TI actually does. I *do* know that the 4KE is a Release 2 part.
Regards,
Kevin K.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] malta4kec hang in calibrate_delay fix, Thomas Bogendoerfer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] malta4kec hang in calibrate_delay fix, Thiemo Seufer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] malta4kec hang in calibrate_delay fix, Thomas Bogendoerfer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] malta4kec hang in calibrate_delay fix, Thiemo Seufer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |