I have the feeling you are not quite managing to sort out this one by
yourself. As explained by Mike Jagdis, there _are_ _no_ step 2, rev 5 or
step 2, rev 7 6x86s.
There are what Cyrix and IBM call Rev 2.5, Rev 2.7 6x86s and a single
Rev 4.2 6x86Ls. These correspond respectively to what the Mike Jagdis
patch will report as step 1 rev 5, step 1 rev 7 and step 2 rev 2.
Linux Developer (Phillip) wrote:
...
> > The PR200L is always a Rev 4.2 chip (which the Mike Jagdis patch will
> > report as step 2 rev 2). Both Rev 2.5 and 2.7 are plain, classic,
> > single-voltage 6x86 chips.
>
> Not true. Cyrix, at one point, decided to keep the 6x86 and 6x86L series
> at the same step/rev levels, as much as possible.
Interesting. When was that?
> There really isn't much modification needed.
How do you mean? You mean that a new mask with a new power plane, a new
CMOS process, a new instruction and a new pinout isn't "much
modification"?
...
> cx8 is reported in /proc/cpuinfo.
Good, now we know for sure it's a 6x86L Rev 4.2. Which the Mike Jagdis
patch will report as a step 2 rev 2 chip.
Since you seem to be running its core at 3.3V, you'll certainly run into
some problems, whatever motherboard you plug it in. :-(
>
...
> I've worked with these CPUs a long time. Trust me, it is a Step2, Rev7.
I don't trust you ;-) Just joking... But please check the markings again
and report the _exact_ markings, if you have access to the chip.
> I've run every utility in the book, I've patched and repatched, I've used
> every patch out there (no wonder lilo.conf is nearly 100k!;), and
> everything that reports correctly reports the same; Step 2, Revision 7.
You earlier had reported that your 2.0.30 Linux kernel with the Mike
Jagdis patch was reporting this chip (correctly) as a step 2 rev 2 chip.
Good.
So, I am sorry to say that whatever other utility/patch you have used
that reported this chip as a hypothetical Step 2 Rev 7 chip was... well,
brain-dead. :-(
You didn't yet test the 5 second "get6x86 -p 0xff" DIR1 reading, did
you? That would provide some conclusive evidence about the chip
revision. And would permit ending this confused thread...
Cheers,
========================================================
Andrew D. Balsa
Home Page: http://www.tux.org/~balsa
andrewbalsa@usa.net
========================================================