Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:28:15 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: hartzell@alerce.com Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Via Nano CPU: Can boot 7.0-RELEASE-amd64, can't boot 7.1-RELEASE-amd64: "cpu doesn't support long mode" Message-ID: <200901160928.16069.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <18800.9179.709405.287763@almost.alerce.com> References: <b072dc420901051124q377ae42o5406272eb10935ce@mail.gmail.com> <200901151703.33608.jhb@freebsd.org> <18800.9179.709405.287763@almost.alerce.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 16 January 2009 1:06:19 am George Hartzell wrote: > John Baldwin writes: > > On Monday 05 January 2009 4:16:36 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > On Monday 05 January 2009 02:24 pm, Koen Smits wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I have some problems getting FreeBSD 7.1-RELEASE amd64 to boot on > > > > my VIA VB8001, which is a mini-ITX board with the new VIA Nano CPU. > > > > This CPU is fully 64bit capable. But, when I try to boot Disc1 from > > > > an IDE CD-ROM I get the error "cpu doesn't support long mode", > > > > which implies the CPU can't do 64bit, and booting halts asking for > > > > a kernel. > > > > The first thing I tried was running ubuntu 8.10 64bit. It installs > > > > and runs fine. And, trying FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE Disc1 amd64 also > > > > boots and installs normally! > > > > Any help on fixing this is much appreciated. > > > > > > See: > > > > > > http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=revision&revision=183667 > > > http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=revision&revision=183823 > > > > > > I am not sure removing Via CPU support was intentional, though. > > > > Definitely not. At the time the kernel didn't support the Via CPU either. It > > seems you have fixed both the loader and kernel since, however. > > The fix to the loader has a comment about MFC'ing in a week, but there > are a bunch of changes to support padlock, MSI, etc... that don't have > any such directives. > > When there isn't an explicit MFC directive with the commit, what does > that mean for plans to merge them back to -STABLE? Nothing, sometimes a developer forgets them, or sometimes they will key off one reminder to merge an entire set of related commits. And sometimes we decide not to merge something we set a reminder for. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200901160928.16069.jhb>