User talk:Asdfsfs

Sony PlayStation Portable's CPU
Hello, on 14 August 2017 you modified the technical specification on the article about the PSP, removing the statement that the PSP's CPU was a modified MIPS R4000 and instead saying it was a modified MIPS32 release 2. I'm not here to contradict you, indeed I believe myself it's not an R4000 but a MIPS32. Instead I would like to know what are the reasons/sources that make you believe it's a MIPS32 release 2 ? Thanks Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no "official" source for that obviously, but evidence such as people in the Linux development community having had issues with the CPU not featuring MMU/TLB functionality, while the R4000 seems to include that hardware by default. Here is one such topic, you can find more with searching for "MIPS32 PSP" etc. The specs of that proposed 4km CPU seem to fit that statement from what I can tell.
 * Even if Sony themselves did call it an "R4000" at one point, considering all the other little details that got swept under the rug, like the major hardware changes in later PS2 Slim models that led to compatibility issues, I don't think everything written in press publications can be taken for granted. Asdfsfs (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * When you say that the 4Km "fit that statement" you mean that it don't have a fully featured MMU/TLB ? I know I'm being a little bit analytical here :). Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is how I understood that datasheet. "The Memory Management Unit consists of a simple, fixed Block Address Translation (BAT) mechanism for applications that do not require the full capabilities of a Translation Lookaside Buffer based MMU." (p. 1) Asdfsfs (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the information :). Now, I'm wondering: there still exist some places within the article about the PSP that say that the CPU is R4000-based, should we change these to tell it's indeed more likely to be a MIPS32R2 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrrhonist05 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead if you like. Asdfsfs (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Type-0 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Type-0. Since you had some involvement with the Type-0 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)