Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:59:10 -0500 From: Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> To: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Cc: "freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org" <freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Problems booting 9.1-STABLE on Netra X1 Message-ID: <3A37672E-B6F7-4D5E-8293-0ED3B203C358@distal.com> In-Reply-To: <20130225214941.GD955@alchemy.franken.de> References: <CE371F2B-CF62-4695-A9F0-B56995BA3CC6@distal.com> <20130225101315.GA79064@alchemy.franken.de> <76C74932-5BB0-4194-86CE-F121F6D18D84@distal.com> <20130225214941.GD955@alchemy.franken.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Marius Strobl wrote: > Yes, IMO this approach is inappropriate as there really seems to be > something broken with this particular machine rather than this issue > being a general problem with that model, i.e. nobody else running > FreeBSD on an X1 reported this so far. I don't own an X1 but I do > have a v100, which employ a mainboard pretty much identical to that > of X1 and even also identify themselves as SUNW,UltraAX-i2, but don't > see such a problem, i.e. neither the power fail interrupt firing nor > strange hangs, either. Once I have a replacement for the broken > hardware of my committatron I can make registering the power fail > interrupt a tunable defaulting to on though. Well, Dave McGuire did respond on that thread that he was running NetBSD 4.0.1 with no problems, but someone else (Jochen Kunz) said they tried netbooting a 4.0.1 kernel on an X1 and got the same hang I did. The code that's in place in the NetBSD tree was actually committed later, it seems, as a result of this other thread that the earlier thread was resurrected on: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sparc64/2011/02/12/msg001515.html So, at least 2 people, and 3 if I'm reading my personal email archives correctly, have seen this problem on an X1. And, it seems at least one person was _not_ seeing it. (But later seeing some other problem when a CD-ROM was attached to the IDE bus, even when not in use/netbooting) It's clearly low-end hardware, and I could believe that it may be a "affects some but not all systems". But, assuming it's more than just _one_ bogus system, finding a way to deal with it at HEAD makes sense. Not necessarily that the earlier code is the only or best solution. - Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A37672E-B6F7-4D5E-8293-0ED3B203C358>