> ...this reminds me... I have a Firepower LX sitting a few feet away..
> Bill Rees mentioned this particular box has a newer firmware revision
> than the MX you did the port with... Apparently, this firmware
> revision uses BATs to handle its mappings, which I understand is
> different from previous revisions of the firmware.

What revision does the firmware have?  I'm currently running 3.0.

According to the PPC binding, the OpenFirmware isn't allowed to use the
BATs (albeit I cannot see a reason for this restriction, if they are saved
and restored on client entry/exit).

Actually, the firmware in my MX did use BATs for its mappings when I got it,
but newer revisions of the firmware replaced this with page table mapping.
So I would be really surprised, if they switched back to BATs.

> So, the main question I have is:
> 
> 	"Should I expect trouble?"

Since initial development was with the use of BATs, there shouldn't be a
problem.  However, I have to admit that I'm not 100% sure that I didn't
manage to break support for this.

> and the second is:
> 
> 	"If yes, how difficult do you estimate it will be to fix?"

If I really did introduce some incompatibilities, it should be quite easy
to fix.
--
ws@TooLs.DE     (Wolfgang Solfrank, TooLs GmbH) 	+49-228-985800