Erratum 51 bugfix?

[Dan Malek]

David Gibson wrote:
>
> According to the ppc405gp errata, the workaround for erratum 51 is
> incorrect.

Got it, thanks.  I actually went to read the 4xx errata this time instead
of just blindly accepting the patch as I did last time.  There are some
other nasty things we should consider fixing.  The worst is #67, and now
they have told us about #77 so we can fix up the ATOMIC_SYNC_FIX....

Of all the errata, #77 is the only one we have seen with Linux.  I guess
you could force #51 to occur, but whether you call ITLBmiss or DTLBmiss
probably doesn't matter because they end up at the same place.  We are
somewhat lucky with #67 because I don't think we have mapping situations
where this can occur.  Although, some days I read it and think otherwise.....


	-- Dan

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/