Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:26:46 -0700 (MST)
From:      Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
To:        Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
Cc:        Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, FreeBSD mobile Mailing List <freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer Thinkpads
Message-ID:  <14885.33446.81161.292998@nomad.yogotech.com>
In-Reply-To: <20001130084740.K48277@echunga.lemis.com>
References:  <3A23D5BD.5CF72F4F@dccnet.com> <200011281624.eASGOdF25354@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <14885.15275.584459.919834@nomad.yogotech.com> <20001130084740.K48277@echunga.lemis.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >>>> FreeBSD - Unable to boot OS after installation on
> >>>>           IBM Thinkpad A20, A21, T20, T21, or X20.
> >>>
> >>> Question: Does IBM reserve space on the HDD of their laptops for system BIOS
> >>> that would cause such a problem in the event of a dedicated installation?
> >>
> >> No.  Some fool at IBM (or whomever they contracted the BIOS development
> >> out to) decided to use partition ID 165 for the suspend-to-disk
> >> partition, and the IBM BIOS gets very, very upset when it finds what it
> >> thinks is an enormous suspend-to-disk partition on the disk.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that's not the case.  In fact, I'm almost positive
> > that's not the case, as we have a number of FreeBSD machines running on
> > these boxes.
> >
> > However, what *is* happening is that the boot-blocks are too big (this
> > was the case in 4.1, and was fixed in 4.2, something about using up
> > 2-sectors or somesuch) which causes the IBM BIOS to barf on it for some
> > reason.
> >
> > If you install older/newer bootlblocks, it works fine.  Unfortunately,
> > these boxes became popular around the time that FreeBSD 4.1 was
> > released, so anyone that attempted to install with it made their
> > computers unable to recognize the disks.
> >
> > It's really a 'BIOS' problem, since if you use older (smaller)
> > bootblocks and the partition of 165, it works fine.
> 
> Have you tried it?

Yep.  However, we did have a WinXX partition on the front of the disk,
and it may have been due to other factors, since as re-writing the MBR,
as well as the partition table.

In recovering the laptop, we did a number of things, and I assumed (it
seems wrongly) that it was related to the boot0 size.

The user wasn't interested in testing, and just wanted a working laptop.


Nate


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?14885.33446.81161.292998>