Re: Cyrix Detection -- NO SMP, please ?????

Brian K. White (linut@squonk.net)
Thu, 29 Oct 1998 07:42:43 -0500


>From: "Khimenko Victor" <khim@sch57.msk.ru>
>Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 02:13:48 +0400 (MSD)
>Subject: Re: Cyrix Detection -- NO SMP, please ?????
>
>16-Oct-98 12:31 you wrote:
> Hi Tom,

> On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Tom Sightler wrote:

> [...]
>> servers, etc. However, upon compiling 2.0.35 I've found that these
machines
>> hang at Calibrating delay loop..., also, all the recent 2.1.xxx versions
do
>> the same, as well as 2.0.36 pre13. There was a version of 2.1.xxx around
>> 110 that has temporarily disabled the enhanced chip detection and this
>> version did boot on these machines.

> Have you tried 2.1.116 or laters. There is an explicit test in the Cyrix
> code for both the presence of the DIR registers, and later for a 6x86
> class cpu before attempting any cpuid games (and all done in C). If this
> is not working I'll be very interested I finding out why, since the test
> procedures are the Cyrix Inc. recommended ones.

The last version that properly detected my Cyrix was 2.1.119.
With the known exceptions, pretty much all versions prior to that as well as
any 2.0
that has the cyrix patch applied produce the same /proc/cpuinfo and all
versions
since, including vanilla 2.1.126, have a faulty "Model: " line. At the same
time
the bogomips changed to the same as what it is on kernels that don't
recognize
the cyrix 6x86 and just treat it as a 486. But Joauder Ho fixed that a
version or
two later. the model bug remains.

Here's the details.:
What my cpu really is: Cyrix 6x86L pr200+ (I forget the stepping, i'm at
work right now, 4.2 I think) running at 150MHz, (2x75)

lines from /proc/cpuinfo on Correctly working kernels...
Model: 6x86L
Cpu_Model: 6x86L CyrixInstead stepping etc...
...
bogomips: 149.50

Lines from 2.1.120
...
Model: 49
Cpu_Model: 6x86L CyrixInstead stepping etc...
...
bogomips: 119.20 (fixed, now 149.50 again)

Note: the longer cpu info string immediately below "Model: " never deviated.
(except maybe in 2.1.110-115 ?) It is and has been been identical (and
correct)
all along.

I detect no _functional_ problems or anything (aside from having to adjust
a few toy scripts, /etc/issue, and such-like.) :)

--
Brian~

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/