Re: Which kernel-image for a Via Ezra chip?
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 22:55, Kent West wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 16:50, Kent West wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Got a Walmart Microtel $300 computer with a Via Ezra microprocessor. I
> >>want to upgrade to a 2.4.20 kernel image from Unstable. Which image do I
> >>need for this chip, or will I have to roll my own?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The Via C3 series, of which the Ezra is part of, is x86-compatabile:
> >http://www.via.com.tw/en/viac3/c3.jsp
> >In fact, it uses the Socket-370, just like the P3 (Tualatin).
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Via+Ezra&btnG=Google+Search
> >First hit:
> >http://www.geek.com/procspec/via/ezra-t.htm
> >
> >
> >
> Well, yes, But does that mean I need the
> kernel-image-2.4-386
> kernel-image-2.4-586tsc
> or the
> kernel-image-2.4-686
> file, or perhaps some other? These are all "x86-compatible", are they
> not? If I had to make a guess, I'd guess 686, but I was hoping to have
> an authoritative answer before downloading a possibly wrong kernel over
> a slow-dial-up connection. And now I'm 90 miles away from that box, so
> trying to walk a newbie through the process via email and getting the
> wrong kernel has even less appeal. Oh well, I reckon it can wait until I
> make another trip down that way; the only real reason he needs to
> upgrade is to hopefully fix a mis-aligned mouse pointer and a lack of
> sound capability. Thanks for the response!
Well, you can't go wrong with the -386...
Because of the possible lack of MTTR in the C3, I wouldn't try the
other unless I had broadband, though.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. mailto:ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson |
| |
| "Basically, I got on the plane with a bomb. Basically, I |
| tried to ignite it. Basically, yeah, I intended to damage |
| the plane." |
| RICHARD REID, who tried to blow up American Airlines |
| Flight 63 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: