paubert at iram.es
Thu Jan 22 04:27:25 EST 2004
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 07:01:15PM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On 19-jan-04, at 23:05, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>The BAT thing at least is documented (and has been documented
> >>_for ever_ -- see the PEM, the 970 is a 64-bit chip. Get the
> >>rev 2.0 PEM from the 970 doc page).
> >>The large page thing is cpu specific afaik (from memory).
> >POWER3 had BATs
> Sure, but BATs are not *required* by the 64-bit architecture.
> p.s. Well actually, I went to check -- and the PEM 2.0 _does_
> define BATs for 64-bit. Let's put this under "POWER4 and
> derivatives specific" as well then, until the docs get fixed :-)
Indeed, sorry for the late reply, but I was really wondering how you
could interpret a bit level description of the BATs and the sentences
describing them as "some implementations may not have them" ;-)
There are no mention of big/large/huge pages either, nor of
instructions which may have been added for Power4/970 (I know
Frankly speaking the current state of the documentation is worrying me,
I remember that when the PPC750 was announced, a lot of documentation
was added to IBM and Motorola websites in a matter of days.
 well, I found some mentions of the large pages in a redbook about
Power4. But that's about all.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev