I've been googling for the VIA VT8237 southbridge and
the CLE266 datasheets. No luck so far. About to mail
their support email address. Hopefully I'll get
register specs rather than a marketing brochure.
Anyone happen to have this info and/or suggestions on
how to get it quickly? Please feel free to mail me
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:44:39PM +0800, William J Beksi wrote:
> Has anyone ported or working on porting the National Semicondutor
> sc1100 cpu?
There has been work made in the freebios tree (often called v1) to
support scx200s, check out the nano mainboard, but I'm not sure what
the differences between x200 and x100 are.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:54:18AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> All you have to do is not tell romcc it has mmx or sse registers.
> For a modern memory controller that gets awfully tight but for a
> simpler memory controller it should be doable, to make everything
> fit. I almost had the Opteron memory controller working in just 8
Just out of curiosity, would getting romcc to work in 64bit mode be
worthwhile? It would give the compiler access to eight additional 64
(Is @clustermatic.org still working?)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:01:09AM -0700, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Richard Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 05:54:17 +0000 (GMT), Ramesh Chhaba
> > <ourlinuxid(a)yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > > But I want to make my romimage within 256KB
> > >
> > > So what options I acn change to do that
> > > currently my image is 356 (approx) KB
> > PAY_LOAD_SIZE is not a maximum size. its the blocksize option
> > thats used in the 'dd' statemnet that copies the payload into a
> > file. So 64k is the minimum it will be but it could be 128k,
> > 192k, 256k, etc.
> > Make your ROM_SIZE be the size you want the image - payload size.
> > You can see all the magic for this in the makefile that the
> > config tool generates. I remember I had to tweak with my numbers
> > till I got to to come out the right size.
> this is a clear FAQ entry.
I wish I understood it better, I guess I should take a look at the
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:55:57AM -0600, Richard Smith wrote:
> It means that the 87570 may have control of the write enable line
> on the flash. If its not asserted no writes to the flash will be
> possible unless you pull the chip.
I got the impression that he tested the first flash with an external
programmer, although it would certainly be nice to add support for
the system to flash_rom.