Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:23:18 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Marco Trillo <marcotrillo@gmail.com> Cc: grehan@freebsd.org, freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8.0-current 200809 snapshot CD boot problem Message-ID: <263AF44F-FC15-4700-B93B-B0DE07A17B40@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <b9c23c9f0809270348t7c4f1976y3134d2d5aa2ee15@mail.gmail.com> References: <b9c23c9f0809230355y26d463c4s5a60a22293daa05d@mail.gmail.com> <b9c23c9f0809230952n159c3179t90b6a542eaf94a4f@mail.gmail.com> <b9c23c9f0809231028j3d20b1bcgc8f4aaec15fe23d2@mail.gmail.com> <48DD91A4.2060306@freebsd.org> <b9c23c9f0809270348t7c4f1976y3134d2d5aa2ee15@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 27, 2008, at 3:48 AM, Marco Trillo wrote: *snip* > This is the output of the 'memmap' command with hd:58. It looks like > the memory in question is not being used by OFW: *snip* > 00003000-00083000 00003000-00083000 128 10 > 01c00000-01c40000 01c00000-01c40000 64 2 *snip* > The full output in this case is below. The memory in question is now > mapped, but I don't know why it makes a difference starting at > 0013d3c0 (working) or at 00100100 (not working). *snip* > 00003000-00083000 00003000-00083000 128 10 > 00100000-00110000 00100000-00110000 16 0 > 00110000-005ab000 00110000-005ab000 1179 0 *snip* Let me get it straight... In the first case (booting from hd:58), does the boot fail for start address 0x100100 but not for start address 0x13d3c0? In the second case (booting from CD), does it work in both cases? Or is the second case the same as the first case and it is failing for 0x100100 and working for 0x13d3c0? -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?263AF44F-FC15-4700-B93B-B0DE07A17B40>