From owner-freebsd-mobile Wed Nov 29 9:58:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C9937B402 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:58:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22813; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:58:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17532; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:58:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14885.17347.829870.189806@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:58:27 -0700 (MST) To: Ken Key Cc: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer Thinkpads In-Reply-To: <200011291756.JAA88464@sodium.cips.nokia.com> References: <14885.15948.729037.110372@nomad.yogotech.com> <200011291756.JAA88464@sodium.cips.nokia.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Didn't Robert shrink it back to 1 sector after 4.1 was released? It > > would be interesting to know if the 'smaller' bootblock worked as well. > > I was using the v4.2 release ISO image (the one with the broken PC98). > I got rather intimate with the boot0.s, boot1.s, boot2.s code last week > when I tried changing the partition number to something else. I would > almost swear that boot0 was still 1K, but I don't have it on hand to confirm > that. It is. I just verified that the change from 1K -> 512 was only made on the HEAD, and never back-ported to 4.X. > I also got the hang after install from a v4.0 disk, which I believe is > only 1 sector. I was brute forcing the combinations pretty hard. So, it still hung with a one-sector boot? That is different from my experience, so it may be we have a plethora of messups at IBM. :( :( > Please note, that using LILO as the MBR instead of boot0 still gave me > this hang-at-the-BIOS-prompt issue, so I'm pretty confident it is > independant of the size of boot0. I would love to be shown wrong, > though. Sounds like you've covered the bases. > > (The box we're using is an A20, so it may be different from the A21 > > problem..) > > Yup, we have a pair of T20's here that are happily running FreeBSD. They > had some issues, but not this hard hang. I had this hang on T21 and > A21P. I hope that I'll be able to test an X20 an A20P in the upcoming > month, but the engineers that own those machines are rather hesitant > considering what's been happening with the *21's. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message