In message <7283DE19D141D111AD0E00A0C95B195502581D61 at mail2.aiinet.com> you
wrote:
>
> I'm having trouble accessing the upper 8MB of the 16MB SDRAM SIMM on this
> board.
> I'm wondering if I don't have something configured wrong in my BDI2000
> config file.
Although I don't have a 8260 here to
"Gessner, Matt" wrote:
>
> A long subject...
>
> I'm having trouble accessing the upper 8MB of the 16MB SDRAM SIMM on this
> board.
> I'm wondering if I don't have something configured wrong in my BDI2000
> config file.
Didn't we discuss this once before? There were some suggestions posted.
> A
Steve Rossi wrote:
> does setting the _PAGE_NO_CACHE flag
> for a page table entry also invalidate any cached data for that page?
No. It only ensures uncached behavior when the TLB is loaded.
> I am observing a write-though behavior when I write to addresses in
> the _PAGE_NO_CACHE page bu
Dan Malek wrote:
> You need to invalidate the data cache for this address and the TLB
> entry for this address when you set the flag.
That is probably his problem.
> You also need to ensure you are not
> multiple mapping the same physical address
No, that is not necessary, as long as your
A long subject...
I'm having trouble accessing the upper 8MB of the 16MB SDRAM SIMM on this
board.
I'm wondering if I don't have something configured wrong in my BDI2000
config file.
Would anyone care to send me one they're using that works?
Also, we're trying to load the linux kernel into this
I'm back on this ... with another question. Following the examples in
commproc.c and enet.c - does setting the _PAGE_NO_CACHE flag
for a page table entry also invalidate any cached data for that page?
I am observing a write-though behavior when I write to addresses in
the _PAGE_NO_CACHE page but w
on 5/31/00 02:21, Geir Frode Raanes at geirfrs at invalid.ed.ntnu.no wrote:
> There are many defenitions of "embedded." One of my favorites is
> the negation form "not a workstation." You do not speak of an
> embedded system. Most embedded systems do not have expansion
> slots even if they do use
Tom,
I'm not sure what the Resolver Error 0 zero is either. I don't
remember seeing that one.
However, I do know that you don't need inetd for ping. If you
want to use ping the way it is then you will need the nss
libraries in addition to your /etc/protocols file. I cheated and
hacked ping.c a
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Mark Morrill wrote:
>
> on 5/30/00 01:51, Geir Frode Raanes at geirfrs at invalid.ed.ntnu.no wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 May 2000, Mark Morrill wrote:
> >> http://www.chips.ibm.com/products/powerpc/linux/
> >> [snip]
> >
> > Which one - the IBM 405GP Evaluation Kit [hint] or the
>
Daris Nevil wrote:
> The quick-and-dirty way of enabling your loopback device
> is:
> ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
Yes, I did that; I get:
$ ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
127.0.0.1: Resolver Error 0 (no error)
Usage: ifconfig [-a] [-i] [-v] interface
[inet add
10 matches
Mail list logo
