Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:56:23 -0700
From:      UCTC Sysadmin <support@transbay.net>
To:        Rob Winters <rob@annapurna.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: new IBM Thinkpads rejecting FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <39EF5FF7.BF89947D@transbay.net>
References:  <5.0.0.25.0.20001018145632.00ac76f8@mail.fiderus.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rob Winters wrote:

> Someone else wrote:
> > > The rep at IBM Tech Support claims that IBM is aware of this problem. He
> > > claimed that FreeBSD was "writing the boot sector somewhere above the usual
> > > boot sector location". His explanation doesn't make sense, and he was
> > unable
> > > to provide me with any specifics...

> Jonas Bulow <jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se> wrote:
> I just killed a ThinkPad A20p by installing 4.1-RELEASE. Apparently IBM allows
> for boot sector programs of a certain size, i.e. "LILO-sized". After that, the
> BIOS stores power management information ON THE BOOT SECTOR. If the BIOS finds
> unpalatable information in that location (presumably whatever FreeBSD puts
> there),
> then it gets very confused:

I recovered a system recently on which the 'booteasy' boot sector had gotten clobbered.
Rewriting the boot0 file, I noticed it is 1024 and not 512 bytes - the 2nd sector on the
disk is used as well as the 1st. That explains both the above remarks.
I'd guess LILO's boot block is one sector long.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39EF5FF7.BF89947D>