Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041026 12:50]: > > Stefan Reinauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Now that A stepping CPUs start dying out, could we not switch the reset > > > mechanism to use LDTSTOP instead of a complete reset? > > > It's more solid and a lot faster. > > > > Solid? There are several errata with using LDTSTOP and you can not use it > after > > > memory is initialized. > > We don't do this anyways, do we?
Yes. We avoid it but the generic code is run after memory is initialized. > In situations with marginal timing for RESET#, there is less chance of > something going wrong. Hardware is rarely perfect, and LDTSTOP# affects > less of it, so it is a little more robust. Possibly. At the same time reset# must be implemented and work correctly, as reset# is used to during board power on. Whereas it is not fatal if LDTSTOP# is implemented incorrectly. I think you can tweak the calls to reset in the romcc compiled code to use LDTSTOP# on a per motherboard basis so it may be worth trying to use LDTSTOP#. Eric _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
