On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Kevin Cernekee wrote: > FWIW, I did check the software user's manual for each of the four > processors in the list and verified that L2B is at CONFIG2 bit 12. It > would be very rude for an L2 designer to redefine those bits in > defiance of the SUM, no? To err is human -- people do all kinds of weird stuff, not necessarily on purpose. I think it should be safe to assume the bit is used properly until proved otherwise. > I also rechecked 24KE just now, and found that L2B is defined in the > latest rev of the SUM, but in my local copy (Revision 01.02) bit 12 is > the MSB of SS instead. Hmmm. Clearly a documentation bug -- notice how the width of the field disagress with the bit indices quoted. Maciej
