From owner-freebsd-alpha  Tue Sep  5 20:45:50 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org
Received: from netplex.com.au (adsl-63-207-30-186.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.207.30.186])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 59D1A37B422; Tue,  5 Sep 2000 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netplex.com.au (peter@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by netplex.com.au (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e863i9G48367;
	Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au)
Message-Id: <200009060344.e863i9G48367@netplex.com.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, mjacob@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: what was the last patch you sent out? 
In-Reply-To: <14773.43042.883756.240283@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> 
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:44:09 -0700
From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> 
> David O'Brien writes:
>  > On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:59:18PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>  > > Does Peter have 164LX, 164SX.  Or does he have a 164<flat> like Matt?
>  > 
>  > For the record (so we know who can test what):
>  > 
>  > Beast.freebsd.org -- PC164
>  > David -- PWS600au (MX5), AS 250 4/266, DS-200 (265DP)
> 
> I assume you mean "DS-20 (2x21264)" ?
> 
>  > Andrew -- PWS500au (GL), UP-1000, AS 200 4/166
> 
> + XP1000
> + AS500 5/266
> - AS200 4/166  (its currently burried under a whole pile of junk, I'm
> trying to work up the movtivation to excavate it..)
> 
>  > Peter -- PC164SX
>  > Wilko -- PWS600au (GL), PWS500a (MX5), AS 1200
>  > JDP -- 164LX
>  > jhb -- PWS500a (MX5)
>  > 
>  > 
>  > Current is known to work on PWS600au(MX5), PWS500au(MX5), and PC164SX.
> 
> As of yesterday's sources, -current also works on the following:
>  PWS500au (GL), XP1000, AS500-5/266, UP1000

What I'd like to know is what is different about the CIA setup in the PC164
(vs PC164SX)..

Also, consider this difference:

PC164:
cia0: ALCOR/ALCOR2, pass 3
cia0: extended capabilities: 21<DWEN,BWEN>
PC164SX:
cia0: Pyxis, pass 1
cia0: extended capabilities: 1<BWEN>

And consider:
        if (cia_rev >= 2 || cia_ispyxis)
                cia_config = REGVAL(CIA_CSR_CNFG);
        else
                cia_config = 0;
..
        if (alpha_implver() != ALPHA_IMPLVER_EV5
            || alpha_amask(ALPHA_AMASK_BWX)
            || !(cia_config & CNFG_BWEN)) {
..
                chipset = cia_swiz_chipset;
	} else  {
..
		chipset = cia_bwx_chipset;
	}

IE: we are setting cia_bwx_chipset for all capable chipsets, including
both the ALCOR and Pyxis ones that I've seen console cut/pastes from.

While later:
        if (cia_ispyxis) {
                snprintf(chipset_type, sizeof(chipset_type), "pyxis");
                chipset_bwx = 1;
                chipset_ports = CIA_EV56_BWIO;
                chipset_memory = CIA_EV56_BWMEM;
                chipset_dense = CIA_PCI_DENSE;
        } else {
                snprintf(chipset_type, sizeof(chipset_type), "cia");
                chipset_bwx = 0;
                chipset_ports = CIA_PCI_SIO1;
                chipset_memory = CIA_PCI_SMEM1;
                chipset_dense = CIA_PCI_DENSE;
                chipset_hae_mask = 7L << 29;
        }

It seems to me that at one point, we are setting the Pyxis/ALCOR to use
BWX and later on we are setting BWX modes on Pyxis-only (missing out the
PC164's ALCOR chips), but we are leaving the chipset[] vector pointer
setup for BWX.

Could this possibly explain it?  (ie: machine half setup for SWIZ and half
for BWX)  I really do not understand the finer details of this area of the
Alphas.

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message