Menu
▾
▴
linux-apus-devel
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2000 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(210) |
Jun
(169) |
Jul
(167) |
Aug
(128) |
Sep
(218) |
Oct
(120) |
Nov
(86) |
Dec
(71) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 |
Jan
(91) |
Feb
(179) |
Mar
(52) |
Apr
(56) |
May
(183) |
Jun
(62) |
Jul
(63) |
Aug
(49) |
Sep
(36) |
Oct
(35) |
Nov
(72) |
Dec
(30) |
| 2002 |
Jan
(53) |
Feb
(61) |
Mar
(56) |
Apr
(13) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
(80) |
Aug
(73) |
Sep
(30) |
Oct
(29) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(40) |
| 2003 |
Jan
(10) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
(4) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(3) |
Jun
(19) |
Jul
(64) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(28) |
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(21) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(30) |
Mar
(18) |
Apr
(1) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(18) |
Jul
(13) |
Aug
|
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(5) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2005 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
(6) |
Dec
|
| 2006 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(6) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(3) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(6) |
May
(10) |
Jun
(7) |
Jul
(13) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Ken T. <ke...@we...> - 2002-08-09 19:31:28
|
On 9 Aug 2002, Michel D=E4nzer wrote: > That leaves binutils as another suspect; Debian was at around > 2.11.92.0.x last October, what version do you have Ken? 2.9.5.0.19 (as and ld -v say 2.9.50 =20 Ken. |
|
From: Andreas <an...@po...> - 2002-08-09 18:48:05
|
Hello Jarmo Am 09-Aug-02 schrieb Jarmo Laakkonen: > Andreas wrote something like this: > >> Which BlizzardPPC firmware revison are you using, say, are you using >> the latest one which supports the pci bridging cards, ore some older >> one? > > The newest without PCI support. So it doesn't seem to be a firmware issue only targeting the owners of boards with the latest patch applied. >> And, just to be sure, the normally built kernel 2.4.18 doesn't work >> for you neither? > > You are correct. Thanks! -- Best wishes, Andi |
|
From: Jarmo L. <jam...@ko...> - 2002-08-09 14:51:39
|
Andreas wrote something like this: > Which BlizzardPPC firmware revison are you using, say, are you using > the latest one which supports the pci bridging cards, ore some older > one? The newest without PCI support. > And, just to be sure, the normally built kernel 2.4.18 doesn't work > for you neither? You are correct. -- http://www.kolumbus.fi/jami.laakkonen/ppc/index.html A1200T 040-25MHz & PPC 603e-240MHz, 96MB RAM, BVisionPPC |
|
From: Alan B. <al...@ms...> - 2002-08-09 13:33:45
|
hi, > BTW Alan (or anyone for that matter), what's the last kernel that works > for you? One of the snapshots I presume? the last 2.4.13 - that'd be the 20011030 version. i used to be able to compile 2.4.13 on my system fine - was doing that to test the MOL parts for the kernel...and started playing with serial code to get ioblix working with new serial. now even my 2.4.13 cant be compiled....which is why i think theres some other issue...rather than simply the kernel code :-| alan |
|
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2002-08-09 10:18:39
|
On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 18:54, Jarmo Laakkonen wrote:=20 > Michel wrote something like this: >=20 > > I can't test right now, I put it up at >=20 > > http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmapus-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.bz2 > > http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmmodules-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.= tar.gz >=20 > Well, this doesn't work here. It prints the last_ipl output and then > hangs like always. I compiled my own kernel with GCC 3.1 and the results > were the same. So gcc is out, thanks for testing.=20 That leaves binutils as another suspect; Debian was at around 2.11.92.0.x last October, what version do you have Ken? BTW Alan (or anyone for that matter), what's the last kernel that works for you? One of the snapshots I presume? --=20 Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast |
|
From: Alan B. <al...@ms...> - 2002-08-09 09:49:58
|
hi, > > I've sent a gcc 2.95.2 compiled kernel 2.4.14 to Michel for testing (he > > was first witha config) so we'll all now soon. > > I can't test right now, I put it up at > > http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmapus-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.bz2 > http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmmodules-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.tar.gz bad news: doesnt work on my A1200. stops at the IDE part...like we've seen before. ..so there does appear to be somethign amiss for the 603e blizzardppc systems in apus_setup.c ...but as 2.4.13 compiled with 2.95.4 didnt work here either we may be looking at a gcc/binutiles bug too. great fun :-( alan |
|
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2002-08-09 08:07:40
|
On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 01:47, Rene Brothuhn wrote: > On 2002.08.09 00:45 Ken Tyler wrote: > >=20 > > > I'm wondering while ___dma_freep is called, but you don't see the chi= p > > > initialising... > >=20 > > I don't know if ___dma_freep is called, I suspect not, the reason for > > modifying ___dma_freep is to get it to compile in the first place. >=20 > O.K. >=20 > But I have found the reason why the driver its not started on your=20 > machine. The code for detecting the Cyberstorm SCSI was inside a #ifdef=20 > CONFIG_PCI... I have moved the code outside and put the new code already = to >=20 > http://www.wirsinds.de/rene/53c770.tar.bz2 >=20 > or just move the part enclosed in #ifdef CONFIG_CYBERSTORMIII_SCSI around= =20 > the line 10380 below the next #endif... Or create a branch in CVS? --=20 Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast |
|
From: Rene B. <re...@we...> - 2002-08-08 23:48:10
|
On 2002.08.09 00:45 Ken Tyler wrote: > > > I'm wondering while ___dma_freep is called, but you don't see the chip > > initialising... > > I don't know if ___dma_freep is called, I suspect not, the reason for > modifying ___dma_freep is to get it to compile in the first place. O.K. But I have found the reason why the driver its not started on your machine. The code for detecting the Cyberstorm SCSI was inside a #ifdef CONFIG_PCI... I have moved the code outside and put the new code already to http://www.wirsinds.de/rene/53c770.tar.bz2 or just move the part enclosed in #ifdef CONFIG_CYBERSTORMIII_SCSI around the line 10380 below the next #endif... Ciao, Renè |
|
From: Ken T. <ke...@we...> - 2002-08-08 22:45:24
|
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Rene Brothuhn wrote: > I'm wondering while ___dma_freep is called, but you don't see the chip > initialising... I don't know if ___dma_freep is called, I suspect not, the reason for modifying ___dma_freep is to get it to compile in the first place. Ken. |
|
From: Rene B. <re...@we...> - 2002-08-08 21:40:43
|
On 2002.08.08 23:07 Ken Tyler wrote: > > Hello, > > Below is the samll change I made to 53c770.c to get it to compile, I > think > I'm freeing the right thing. Looks good but we should use free_pages() and giving them the size. But this is of course not the problem you actualy have. As I see in your dmesg, the 53c770 driver is not started by the kernel. Maybe it interferes with the A4091. You should at least see the line: "Trying to detect PuP SCSI...". After that, if zorro_find_device(ZORRO_PROD_PHASE5_CYBERSTORM_MK_III, zd) is true, you should see: "ncr53c8xx: 53c770 detected". You can find this around the line 10380 in 53c770.c. I assume the 53c770 driver starts, if you disable the driver for the A4091... Don't know much about how a driver is setting up to be started right by the kernel, Fred has done this stuff. Seems, that there is something to do... Ciao, Renè |
|
From: Rene B. <re...@we...> - 2002-08-08 20:36:05
|
On 2002.08.08 21:49 Ken Tyler wrote: > > Thats interesting. This does not happen on my machine, maybe its > relatet > > by some other hardware you use. But for freeing some of the dma memory > > pci_free_consistent is used, I'll "ifdef" it out and replace it by some > > other. > > I think its because I have no PCI or PCI_PERMEDIA mcompiled in. That could be the reason. > ___dma_getp has an #ifdef CONFIG_AMIGA that forces the use of > __get_free_pages (via a #define) instead of pci_get_consistent. > > ___dma_freep always uses pci_get_consistent. I thought it was not necessary for now to remove pci_free_consistent for Amiga, because its simply a wrapper for free_pages(). But this is no problem. > > Can you send me a dmesg? What version of kernel do you use and have you > > > compiled the 53c770 driver as module? Are you using my last update on > > "apus_setup.c"? > > A monolithic 2.4.18 kernel, I don't have your latest cache patch - I'll > get it. > > As for dmesg I don't have one at the moment because I added the needed > free_page call in ___dma_freep and I'm running the gcc 2.95.2 compiled > 2.4.18 test kernel at this instant. I can give you a dmesg when I return > to my normal + 53c770 config. > > The driver doesn't seem to be initialising or at least not finding the > drive in the test kernel. I'm wondering while ___dma_freep is called, but you don't see the chip initialising... Ciao, Renè |
|
From: Ken T. <ke...@we...> - 2002-08-08 20:06:39
|
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Jarmo Laakkonen wrote: > Well, this doesn't work here. It prints the last_ipl output and then > hangs like always. I compiled my own kernel with GCC 3.1 and the results > were the same. Can you post the debug output. Ken. |
|
From: Ken T. <ke...@we...> - 2002-08-08 19:49:41
|
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Rene Brothuhn wrote: > Hi! Hello, > Thats interesting. This does not happen on my machine, maybe its relatet > by some other hardware you use. But for freeing some of the dma memory > pci_free_consistent is used, I'll "ifdef" it out and replace it by some > other. I think its because I have no PCI or PCI_PERMEDIA mcompiled in. ___dma_getp has an #ifdef CONFIG_AMIGA that forces the use of __get_free_pages (via a #define) instead of pci_get_consistent. ___dma_freep always uses pci_get_consistent. > Can you send me a dmesg? What version of kernel do you use and have you > compiled the 53c770 driver as module? Are you using my last update on > "apus_setup.c"? A monolithic 2.4.18 kernel, I don't have your latest cache patch - I'll get it. As for dmesg I don't have one at the moment because I added the needed free_page call in ___dma_freep and I'm running the gcc 2.95.2 compiled 2.4.18 test kernel at this instant. I can give you a dmesg when I return to my normal + 53c770 config. The driver doesn't seem to be initialising or at least not finding the drive in the test kernel. Ken. |
|
From: Jarmo L. <jam...@ko...> - 2002-08-08 16:05:04
|
Michel wrote something like this: > I can't test right now, I put it up at > http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmapus-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.bz2 > http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmmodules-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.tar.gz Well, this doesn't work here. It prints the last_ipl output and then hangs like always. I compiled my own kernel with GCC 3.1 and the results were the same. -- http://www.kolumbus.fi/jami.laakkonen/ppc/index.html A1200T 040-25MHz & PPC 603e-240MHz, 96MB RAM, BVisionPPC |
|
From: Rene B. <re...@we...> - 2002-08-08 12:26:33
|
On 2002.08.08 03:51 Ken Tyler wrote: > > I've had a bit of a play with this without any success (less than even). > > In the modified 53c770.c there's a problem, in allocating (dma ?) memory > either __get_free_pages or pci_get_consistent is called, when freeing the > memory there is pci_free_consistent but no matching free_page; Hi! Thats interesting. This does not happen on my machine, maybe its relatet by some other hardware you use. But for freeing some of the dma memory pci_free_consistent is used, I'll "ifdef" it out and replace it by some other. Can you send me a dmesg? What version of kernel do you use and have you compiled the 53c770 driver as module? Are you using my last update on "apus_setup.c"? Thank you for testing! Ciao, Renè |
|
From: Alan B. <al...@ms...> - 2002-08-08 09:31:17
|
hi, > http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmapus-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.bz2 > http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmmodules-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.tar.gz i can test these tonight ..yes, of course, compile latest kernel with older gcc to test theory from other side alan |
|
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2002-08-08 09:16:38
|
On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 03:42, Ken Tyler wrote:=20 >=20 > I've sent a gcc 2.95.2 compiled kernel 2.4.14 to Michel for testing (he > was first witha config) so we'll all now soon. I can't test right now, I put it up at http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmapus-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.bz2 http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/snapshots/vmmodules-2.4.18-gcc2.95.2.tar.= gz Thanks. --=20 Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast |
|
From: Alan B. <al...@ms...> - 2002-08-08 09:10:35
|
hi, >I'm running > > gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release/franzo) > >and get working 2.4.18 kernels for my A4000 604e config (as you know). > >An easy test would be to mail me a config and I'll make it and mail it >back. thats easy - just the default config for APUS! :-) as for which version i have that works....yes, i was right.... 2.95.3 was the GCC that compiled my other kernels. alan |
|
From: Ken T. <ke...@we...> - 2002-08-08 01:51:30
|
I've had a bit of a play with this without any success (less than even). In the modified 53c770.c there's a problem, in allocating (dma ?) memory either __get_free_pages or pci_get_consistent is called, when freeing the memory there is pci_free_consistent but no matching free_page; Is anybody seeing ethernet problems when an drive is plugged into the UW controller ? My system has trouble getting an address from the server (about 2 metres of coax away) on booting and when it does manage to it's very slow. Ken. |
|
From: Ken T. <ke...@we...> - 2002-08-08 01:43:03
|
I've sent a gcc 2.95.2 compiled kernel 2.4.14 to Michel for testing (he was first witha config) so we'll all now soon. Ken. |
|
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2002-08-07 22:15:39
|
[ you forgot to CC: the list again, please fix your mailer ;]=20 On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:48, Alan Buxey wrote:=20 >=20 > > Have you verified that the 2.4.13 kernel that works was built with an o= lder > > compiler, or that a different compiler produces a working kernel from c= urrent > > source? >=20 > I can check this easily - i'll look at my dmesg when i boot strings /kernel/image | grep gcc > - but i'm certain my working 2.4.13 is from back last october - with > 2.95.2 or 2.95.3 Looking at /usr/share/doc/gcc-2.95/changelog.Debian.gz, the first '2.95.4' version appeared on April 12th, 2001. > > It could also be binutils. >=20 > hmm, yes - you dont know the current stable/testing binutils version off = hand do you? daenzer@tibook> apt-show-versions -a -p binutils = ~ binutils 2.12.90.0.14-2 install ok installed No stable version binutils 2.12.90.0.1-4 testing binutils 2.12.90.0.15-1 unstable binutils/unstable upgradeable from 2.12.90.0.14-2 to 2.12.90.0.15-1 I assume testing has the same version as stable yet; I don't recommend 2.12= .90.0.15-1, it seemed to produce broken kernel modules. > > > so, either we change things in our tree to stop this...or advice that > > > everyone leave 2.95.4 well alone and either backtrack to 2.95.2 or mo= ve up > > > to 3.x - anyone playing with 3.x? > >=20 > > AFAIK 3.0 has problems, 3.1 is better. Debian will switch to 3.2 soon. >=20 > okay - i know i can have 2.x with 3.x installed at the same time Should 3.x turn out to fix this problem, I can figure out a way to build the Debian packages (the binaries of which I also use for the tarballs on sf.net) with that. --=20 Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast |
|
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2002-08-07 21:22:58
|
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 20:30, Ken Tyler wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 7 Aug 2002, Michel D=E4nzer wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 12:45, Alan Buxey wrote:=20 >=20 > > > its the f'ing GCC compiler. >=20 > > > 2.95.4 either has a nasty 603 bug...or optimises something away > > > which shouldnt be touched. >=20 > I'm running=20 >=20 > gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release/franzo) >=20 > and get working 2.4.18 kernels for my A4000 604e config (as you know). >=20 > An easy test would be to mail me a config and I'll make it and mail it > back. Attached is the 2.4.18 config I've been using to build binaries. It'd be nice if someone could do the same with a 3.x compiler. --=20 Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast |
|
From: Ken T. <ke...@we...> - 2002-08-07 18:31:23
|
On 7 Aug 2002, Michel D=E4nzer wrote: > On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 12:45, Alan Buxey wrote:=20 > > its the f'ing GCC compiler. > > 2.95.4 either has a nasty 603 bug...or optimises something away > > which shouldnt be touched. I'm running=20 =09gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release/franzo) and get working 2.4.18 kernels for my A4000 604e config (as you know). An easy test would be to mail me a config and I'll make it and mail it back. Ken. |
|
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2002-08-07 14:36:10
|
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 12:45, Alan Buxey wrote:=20 >=20 > I'm 95% sure that I've found the problem with > 2.4.13 kernels. >=20 > its the f'ing GCC compiler. >=20 >=20 > 2.95.4 seems to be the culprit. last night I compiled > the 2.4.13 source with it....and we all know this kernel > works fine (Its the one i normally run anyway!)...but > after a compile on my current system it freezes at exactly > the same point as the 2.4.17 compile...at the IDE probing/detection > part, Have you verified that the 2.4.13 kernel that works was built with an older compiler, or that a different compiler produces a working kernel from curre= nt source? > 2.95.4 either has a nasty 603 bug...or optimises something away > which shouldnt be touched. It could also be binutils. > so, either we change things in our tree to stop this...or advice that > everyone leave 2.95.4 well alone and either backtrack to 2.95.2 or move u= p > to 3.x - anyone playing with 3.x? AFAIK 3.0 has problems, 3.1 is better. Debian will switch to 3.2 soon. --=20 Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast |
|
From: Rene B. <re...@we...> - 2002-08-07 13:06:09
|
On 2002.08.07 12:45 Alan Buxey wrote: > hi, > > I'm 95% sure that I've found the problem with > 2.4.13 kernels. > > its the f'ing GCC compiler. > > > 2.95.4 seems to be the culprit. last night I compiled > the 2.4.13 source with it....and we all know this kernel > works fine (Its the one i normally run anyway!)...but > after a compile on my current system it freezes at exactly > the same point as the 2.4.17 compile...at the IDE probing/detection > part, > > 2.95.4 either has a nasty 603 bug...or optimises something away > which shouldnt be touched. Hi! This seems to make sense, because if I look to the poll results, only 603e users seems to have the IDE problem. Ciao, Renè |
107 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
