Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:49:10 -0500 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alpha ref machine is grumpy... Message-ID: <20040224184910.GA26162@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20040224063937.GB13093@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <16442.29712.148987.927650@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <15989.1077572841@critter.freebsd.dk> <20040224045930.GA8881@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20040224063937.GB13093@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 10:39:37PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> I think the problem is that on alpha we never call cninit().
>
> As a quick test, can you remove device sio from the kernel config and
> instead add the following:
> options NO_SIO
> device uart
>
> This is expected to work. Can you verify that for me?
It didn't seem to help:
Booting [/boot/kernel/kernel]...
Entering /boot/kernel/kernel at 0xfffffc000033eb50...
halted CPU 0
halt code = 2
kernel stack not valid halt
PC = fffffc000058020c
boot failure
P00>>>
I did use today's kernel source for the test, phk had committed
something to specfs I figured I should try to pick up as part of
the test. If you think I should back off to an older kernel source
tree let me know.
I did notice there are some other things that might be acting like
devices that might be touched before the console. It looked like
the eprom device did get some attention as part of the mega patches,
but are there others that might be in that category?
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040224184910.GA26162>