Corey Osgood wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 20:23 +0100, Ceri Coburn wrote:
>> Although I have a nice
>> Willem writer on the way :), so I should be able to test my patches with
>> real hardware shortly.
>
> Do you have a Windows 98 box to run it on? I haven't been able to get
> mine to work on
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 20:23 +0100, Ceri Coburn wrote:
> Although I have a nice
> Willem writer on the way :), so I should be able to test my patches with
> real hardware shortly.
Do you have a Windows 98 box to run it on? I haven't been able to get
mine to work on linux (with wine), vista, or xp
ron minnich wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Ceri Coburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wanted to limit the number of temp's used as I didn't want ROMCC
>> complaining about no more registers available.
>
> romcc is usually not that simple-minded, it should know about reuse.
> Has too many temps
> caused
Uwe Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:14:42PM +0100, Ceri Coburn wrote:
>
>> I wanted to limit the number of temp's used as I didn't want ROMCC
>> complaining about no more registers available.
>>
>
> I was seeing the same problem when I tried to integrate your patch --
>
On 5/22/07, Ceri Coburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wanted to limit the number of temp's used as I didn't want ROMCC
> complaining about no more registers available.
romcc is usually not that simple-minded, it should know about reuse.
Has too many temps
caused trouble for you?
>
> I have
Hi,
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:14:42PM +0100, Ceri Coburn wrote:
> I wanted to limit the number of temp's used as I didn't want ROMCC
> complaining about no more registers available.
I was seeing the same problem when I tried to integrate your patch --
romcc runs out of registers.
The method wi
Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:23:30PM +0100, Ceri wrote:
>> Comments pls?
>
> Have you had a chance to test it?
>
>
>> + NBXCFG, 0x, 0xff00a00c,PCI_REGISTER_32BIT,
> [..]
>> + FDHC, 0x00, 0x00, PCI_REGISTER_8BIT,
>
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < max; i += 4)
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:23:30PM +0100, Ceri wrote:
> Comments pls?
Have you had a chance to test it?
> + NBXCFG, 0x, 0xff00a00c,PCI_REGISTER_32BIT,
[..]
> + FDHC, 0x00, 0x00, PCI_REGISTER_8BIT,
> + for (i = 0; i < max; i += 4) {
> + switch(register_val
See attached diff for details.
Comments pls?
Thanks
C
Modified register_values table to include PCI register size
Modified sdram_set_registers to accommodate register_values table changes
Modified 440BX PAM registers so that all BIOS memory is forwarded to RAM
Signed-off-by: Ceri Coburn <[EMAI
