Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Manish Lachwani wrote: > > > However, the crash still occurs. I dont think your patch was intended to > > fix the problem that I see below (resulting in crash). > > Certainly, it wasn't, but it couldn't have hurt, either. > > > Data bus error, epc == 801f83b8, ra == 80323f04 > > The reason are cp0 hazards, likely leading to an incorrect mapping. Try > the following patch; already applied to the mainline as obviously correct. [snip] > @@ -799,12 +800,12 @@ static __init void build_tlb_write_rando > default: > /* > * Others are assumed to have one cycle mtc0 hazard, > - * and one cycle tlbwr hazard. > + * and one cycle tlbwr hazard or to understand ehb. > * XXX: This might be overly general. > */ > - i_nop(p); > + i_ehb(p); > i_tlbwr(p); > - i_nop(p); > + i_ehb(p); > break; Does r24k really need both delays? If not, it should get its own case. Probably it should be separated even if it is identical, the code above is nothing but a guess based on preexisting code. Thiemo
