[[ I cc'd port*S*-mips rather than port-mips, so I'm quiting more to
give context ]]

In message <199909142026.NAA00451@Cup.DSG.Stanford.EDU> Jonathan Stone writes:
: In message <199909142009.OAA09737@harmony.village.org>,
: Warner Losh writes:
: 
: [In reply to a message elsewhere, reviewing mips3/hpc changes]
: 
: >In message <199909142002.NAA00370@Cup.DSG.Stanford.EDU> Jonathan Stone writes
: >:
: >: mips_machdep.c switch entry for MIPS_R4100 is the obvious case: there
: >: are other r4100 CPU cores, right?
: >
: >There are several Vr41xx cores (the 4100, the 4102, the 4110 and the
: >4120), but they all have the same ID.  NEC is the only one making
: >these things.  However, I think the question may be wrong.  Shouldn't
: >the question be "Aren't there other machines that use the Vr41xx that
: >might be supported by a different port?"
: 
: Sure. (I'm still catching up on this morning's coffee).  I think it
: cuts both ways though: there are non-HPC ports that may use NEC vr41xx
: cores, and there're other mips cores which could, or must, use some of
: the code that's currently inside __hpc__ ifdefs.
: (I was thinking of the non-4k page support).

Agreed.  The low end cores are intersting beasts.  I don't know what
the original Japanese folks think about supporting non Vr41xx CPUs
with this port, but at some point they will need to be supported...

: >Agreed.  There will be similar things for the Toshiba and Phillips
: >ports as well (which I believe have slightly different power
: >control).
: 
: Yep. And I bet someone will ask to integrate that into the existing
: userlevel support for power management (i386-style apmd).

Funny you should mention that.  I've started work in that area.

Warner