From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 20 23:31:06 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6831F1065672; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:31:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mlfbsd@dong.ci0.org) Received: from dong.ci0.org (dong.ci0.org [IPv6:2001:7a8:2066:1::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A84A58FC20; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:31:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mlfbsd@dong.ci0.org) Received: from dong.ci0.org (localhost.ci0.org [127.0.0.1]) by dong.ci0.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m3L14981058613; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:04:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mlfbsd@dong.ci0.org) Received: (from mlfbsd@localhost) by dong.ci0.org (8.14.1/8.13.8/Submit) id m3L147qV058612; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:04:08 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mlfbsd) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:04:06 +0200 From: Olivier Houchard To: Hans Petter Selasky Message-ID: <20080421010405.GA58580@ci0.org> References: <200804201602.40517.hselasky@c2i.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200804201602.40517.hselasky@c2i.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, John Baldwin Subject: Re: AT91RM9200 and possibly other ARM targets are broken in 8-current after recent commit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:31:06 -0000 On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 04:02:39PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > Hi John, > > I'm sorry to say that a recent patch done by you has broken at least the > AT91RM9200 target in 8-current. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/arm/arm/intr.c.diff?r1=1.19;r2=1.20 > > I spent spent several hours today scratching my head why the platform didn't > boot. I added a couple of prints into the code: > Hi, I believe I just fixed that problem, it was indeed AT91RM92-specific (sort of). Thanks a lot for reporting and investigating ! Olivier