On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:59:29PM -0500, Lee Nipper wrote: >On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:06, Marc Chidester <[email protected]> wrote: >> It looks like the Rev D version of the 405EX chip without security >> will be identified as a 405EXr, based on the values in the cpu_specs >> table. > >Yes, that is the case. >The 405EX Rev D without security PVR matches an old 405EXr A/B with security, >and hence the cpu_spec entries' pvr_mask values are no longer correct. > >> Is there an algorithm update needed or am I missing something? > >Perhaps add more cpu_spec table entries for the 405EX & 405EXr with >pvr_mask = 0xffff000f ?
Have you tried that in a locally modified kernel? If so, did it work? If so, care to submit a patch? :) josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
