I am not a subscriber to this list, but I thought this was important
information (which you might already have).
The cyrixIII chips by via have the centaur vendor id which causes the
identify_cpu call in arch/i386/kernel/setup.c to fail. It is probably
reasonable for it to have the centaur id as via owns centaur as well. I
just replaced the centaur_model call with the cyrix_model one, but I
know that I am using a cyrix chip.
A test probably needs to be added in the centaur_model section to test
for the cyrixIII in disguise.
The error is a general protection fault.
Sorry if this is old hat,
Eric Estabrooks
[email protected]
> The cyrixIII chips by via have the centaur vendor id which causes the
> identify_cpu call in arch/i386/kernel/setup.c to fail. It is probably
> reasonable for it to have the centaur id as via owns centaur as well. I
> just replaced the centaur_model call with the cyrix_model one, but I
> know that I am using a cyrix chip.
>
> A test probably needs to be added in the centaur_model section to test
> for the cyrixIII in disguise.
>
> The error is a general protection fault.
>
> Sorry if this is old hat,
Its fairly new hat. VIA cyrix III is a next generation IDT winchip (VIA bought
both the winchip stuff and the Cyrix stuff). 2.2.18 should handle the
winchip properly
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Eric Estabrooks wrote:
> A test probably needs to be added in the centaur_model section to test
> for the cyrixIII in disguise.
2.2.18pre, and 2.4.0test have contained this test for some time now.
However, I've heard no reports of it working or not due to no-one having
the necessary hardware to test it.
Are you saying the latest versions still don't recognise it?
What kernel version did you try ?
regards,
Davej.
--
| Dave Jones <[email protected]> http://www.suse.de/~davej
| SuSE Labs