Date: 25 Jul 2003 08:22:24 -0500 From: Shawn <drevil@warpcore.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fuword(), suword(), etc. Message-ID: <1059139343.50681.2.camel@CPE-65-26-140-154.kc.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3F20D143.8F64F98B@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307231441410.60197-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20030723221109.GA790@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <1059051986.568.3.camel@CPE-65-26-140-154.kc.rr.com> <3F20D143.8F64F98B@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 01:42, Terry Lambert wrote: > I do know that even if they remove the bridge, they are unlikely > to provide enough documentation to boot and run natively on the > hardware without having IBM code setting up the bus arbitration > and other bits that are currently undocumented. Why would IBM try to hide this? Wouldn't they *want* people to take full advantage of the processor for the best performance to help give their product a good image? -- Shawn <drevil@warpcore.org> http://drevil.warpcore.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1059139343.50681.2.camel>