* build/X86_SE/tests/fast/quick/00.hello/x86/linux/simple-atomic passed.
* build/X86_SE/tests/fast/quick/00.hello/x86/linux/simple-timing passed.
* build/MIPS_SE/tests/fast/quick/00.hello/mips/linux/simple-atomic passed.
*
I finally have the IDE controller sort of working (yay!), but
apparently there's a built in 3 millisecond busy loop delay before the
device is recognized as ready to go. In general, did you need to do
anything special to make the controller start up and work in a
reasonable amount of real
This is the mail system at host daystrom.m5sim.org.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete
This is the mail system at host daystrom.m5sim.org.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete
I'm pretty sure in the alpha linux code, that they've added the quiesce()
pseudo-inst to just skip past any busy wait loops. They've done this for the
cpu_idle() loop as well in Alpha.
-Original Message-
From: m5-dev-boun...@m5sim.org [mailto:m5-dev-boun...@m5sim.org] On Behalf
Of Gabe
There are a couple of psuedo instructions, although I believe that x86
at least has one type built in.
Here are the alpha patches:
http://repo.m5sim.org/linux-patches/file/0ab58d9bd9a5/m5/quiesce.diff
http://repo.m5sim.org/linux-patches/file/0ab58d9bd9a5/m5/quiesce_2.6.27.diff
I'm pretty sure
Gabe, if you have any further questions on the x86 idle loop, I'm
actually quite familiar with it because of the ASISA stuff I was
doing. Ali is correct in how the idle loop works. One thing that is
nice is that the idle function is actually a function pointer, so it
is designed to be swapped
For our initial purposes the default executes the halt instruction and
should suffice as long as we have an implementation of halt that
quiesces the CPU, correct?
Ali
On Dec 19, 2008, at 10:08, nathan binkert n...@binkert.org wrote:
Gabe, if you have any further questions on the x86 idle
Yeah, you're right.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Ali Saidi sa...@umich.edu wrote:
For our initial purposes the default executes the halt instruction and
should suffice as long as we have an implementation of halt that
quiesces the CPU, correct?
Ali
On Dec 19, 2008, at 10:08, nathan
This is the mail system at host daystrom.m5sim.org.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete
Thanks for the information guys. I do have halt implemented and it does
quiesce the CPU and I have seen it called in one of the idle functions,
so I think that's taken care of. I think this means the next thing to
implement will be to hook the pseudo instructions in someplace.
Gabe
nathan
This is the mail system at host daystrom.m5sim.org.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete
12 matches
Mail list logo
