Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Problem installing .9 iso image on C240

parisc-linux Richard Hirst 5 participants 13 messages Jul 10, 2001 – Jul 13, 2001 2 messages not in the archive

lore
Share & tools
lore

A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]

A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]

Richard Hirst

author
#2 lore raw
Quoted 3 lines · Charles Boone

I got the .9.1 release, it only wants to boot the 32bit version. so I tried running the install both with compatibility and without.

....
....

Quoted 15 lines

YZrvWESTHLNXBCVMcbcbcbcbOGFRQPDI

PSW: 00000000000011001111111100001110

r0-3     00000000 10335810 101fc9ec ffffffff          
r4-7     1fe02060 0000000e 00000000 10336010          
r8-11    0000004e 0000004d 0004000e 102c0f14
r12-15   00000000 ffffffff 000000fd f0100000     
r16-19   10300580 f000020c f0000204 0000ff40     
r20-23   1fe02060 0000ff40 101fc9b0 0000000e     
r24-27   0000ff40 f2000064 c1b21ec0 1028a010     
r28-31   1fe03aa0 000001c0 10300a00 1010d2c8
sr0-3    00000000 000006e2 00000000 00000000
sr4-7    00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
Quoted 3 lines

IASQ: 00000000 00000000 IAOQ: 101fc2e8 101fc9ec
IIR: 081a025c ISR: 9227ffc8 IOR: 00000064
ORIG_R28: 00000000

IAOQ = _gsc_readl + 8
called from dino_in32()
I guess it was dino_in32(0xc1b21ec0), which looks odd.

Don't know why it should fail like that in the middle of the install. Is it repeatable?

Richard

#3 lore raw

Richard,

Yes, I can repeat it everytime I try to install, same as with the .9 version. I do have one question, why would it not try to install the 64bit version? I was pretty sure that a C240 is a 64bit system.

I am assuming that this is not a problem reading the cdrom, I think that I can try another cdrom.

Thanks,
Charles

Quoted 36 lines · --- Richard Hirst
Quoted 2 lines · Charles Boone

I got the .9.1 release, it only wants to boot the
32bit version. so I tried running the install

both

Quoted 1 line

with compatibility and without.

....
....

Quoted 19 lines

YZrvWESTHLNXBCVMcbcbcbcbOGFRQPDI

PSW: 00000000000011001111111100001110

r0-3 00000000 10335810 101fc9ec ffffffff

r4-7 1fe02060 0000000e 00000000 10336010

r8-11    0000004e 0000004d 0004000e 102c0f14
r12-15   00000000 ffffffff 000000fd f0100000     
r16-19   10300580 f000020c f0000204 0000ff40     
r20-23   1fe02060 0000ff40 101fc9b0 0000000e     
r24-27   0000ff40 f2000064 c1b21ec0 1028a010     
r28-31   1fe03aa0 000001c0 10300a00 1010d2c8
sr0-3    00000000 000006e2 00000000 00000000
sr4-7    00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
Quoted 3 lines

IASQ: 00000000 00000000 IAOQ: 101fc2e8 101fc9ec
IIR: 081a025c ISR: 9227ffc8 IOR: 00000064
ORIG_R28: 00000000

IAOQ = _gsc_readl + 8
called from dino_in32()
I guess it was dino_in32(0xc1b21ec0), which looks
odd.

Quoted 8 lines

Don't know why it should fail like that in the
middle of the
install. Is it repeatable?

Richard

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

author
#4 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · Charles Boone

Richard,

Yes, I can repeat it everytime I try to install, same as with the .9 version. I do have one question, why would it not try to install the 64bit version? I was pretty sure that a C240 is a 64bit system.

I think C240 will run 32 or 64 bit kernels, but 64 bit kernel isn't working on it yet.

Quoted 2 lines

I am assuming that this is not a problem reading the cdrom, I think that I can try another cdrom.

I agree, it doesn't sound like a corrupt CD to me. More likely some kernel problem. I'll try another install on my c360, but it worked last time I tried.

Richard

#5 lore raw
In reply to Charles Boone

Charles Boone wrote:
...

Quoted 3 lines

I do have one question, why
would it not try to install the 64bit version? I was pretty sure that a C240 is a 64bit system.

PDC on the C240 (and similar C-models of that generation) only support PDC calls in "narrow" (ie 32-bit) mode. Sounds like the decision to install 32 vs 64-bit depends on the PDC capabilities bit. Can anyone offhand confirm/deny?

BTW, though the C240 has a PA2.0 CPU (ergo 64-bit capable), I'm not sure rbrad has been able to resolve all the issues when trying to run 64-bit kernels on his C200. He did resolve many of them - including support for 32-bit PDC calls from 64-bit kernels.

grant

Grant Grundler
parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker
+1.408.447.7253

author
#6 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · Grant Grundler

Charles Boone wrote:
...

Quoted 3 lines

I do have one question, why
would it not try to install the 64bit version? I was pretty sure that a C240 is a 64bit system.

PDC on the C240 (and similar C-models of that generation) only support PDC calls in "narrow" (ie 32-bit) mode. Sounds like the decision to install 32 vs 64-bit depends on the PDC capabilities bit. Can anyone offhand confirm/deny?

Hmm, our installer installs either a 32 bit kernel or a 64 bit one which does wide PDC calls. So, I guess we will always install a 32 bit kernel on Cxx. Installing a 64 bit kernel with narrow PDC calls later would be an option (once it works). Do we leave building that kernel as an exercise for the user, or or do we have one packaged in the archive?

Richard

#7 lore raw

= > > I do have one question, why
= > > would it not try to install the 64bit version? I was = > > pretty sure that a C240 is a 64bit system.

As others said, it's a 64-bit-capable CPU with 32-bit-only firmware and only 32-bit kernels work there right now. I don't know that a 64-bit kernel buys you much on a C240 -- am I mistaken?

= > PDC on the C240 (and similar C-models of that generation) only = > support PDC calls in "narrow" (ie 32-bit) mode. Sounds like the decision = > to install 32 vs 64-bit depends on the PDC capabilities bit. = > Can anyone offhand confirm/deny?

Yes, palo asks the firmware whether one or both of 32&64-bit OSs will run on the box. Cxxx says 32 bit only. If both are possible, palo chooses 32-bit for now.

= a 64 bit kernel with narrow PDC
= calls later would be an option (once it works). Do we leave building = that kernel as an exercise for the user, or or do we have one packaged = in the archive?

When it works we can add a config file for building a suitably flavored debian kernel-image package.

	-P
#8 lore raw
Quoted 1 line · Paul Bame

I don't know that a 64-bit kernel buys you much on a C240 -- am I mistaken?

I think not.

I thought about making the same comment since in general wide-mode just runs 2-5% slower. But some apps could take advantage of the wider words for substantial perf gains...but since we don't support 64-bit apps (yet) and only a few isolated places in the kernel would benefit (eg cksum'ing code), I don't see 64-bit kernel a "must have" for C240.

Quoted 8 lines

= > PDC on the C240 (and similar C-models of that generation) only = > support PDC calls in "narrow" (ie 32-bit) mode. Sounds like the decision = > to install 32 vs 64-bit depends on the PDC capabilities bit. = > Can anyone offhand confirm/deny?

Yes, palo asks the firmware whether one or both of 32&64-bit OSs will run on the box. Cxxx says 32 bit only. If both are possible, palo chooses 32-bit for now.

Ok - thanks!
And I think that's fine in general. Someone with a specific need for 64-bit ops can build/install a 64-bit kernel after the fact. Someday we might have a real 64-bit userspace and it might be interesting to get pickier about install support for PA2.0 CPU's.

grant

Grant Grundler
parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker
+1.408.447.7253

#9 lore raw
In reply to Richard Hirst
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Hirst

Installing a 64 bit kernel with narrow PDC
calls later would be an option (once it works). Do we leave building that kernel as an exercise for the user, or or do we have one packaged in the archive?

I was under the impression the "CONFIG_PDC_NARROW" option would only "activate" itself in one boxes that needed it. Ie it does grow the kernel and AFAIK is really only useful for Cxxx models.
Ryan, do I have it right?

I am pretty sure K/D/R-class boxes have a different source base for PDC which "properly" support wide-mode PDC calls.

thanks,
grant

Grant Grundler
parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker
+1.408.447.7253

#10 lore raw
Quoted 10 lines · Grant Grundler
Quoted 4 lines · Richard Hirst

Installing a 64 bit kernel with narrow PDC
calls later would be an option (once it works). Do we leave building that kernel as an exercise for the user, or or do we have one packaged in the archive?

I was under the impression the "CONFIG_PDC_NARROW" option would only "activate" itself in one boxes that needed it. Ie it does grow the kernel and AFAIK is really only useful for Cxxx models.
Ryan, do I have it right?

Not quite. Let me try to clarify (This is the help text for the CONFIG_PDC_NARROW option)....

CONFIG_PDC_NARROW
Saying Y here will allow developers with a C180, C200, C240, C360, J200, J210, and/or a J2240 to test 64-bit kernels by providing a wrapper for the 32-bit PDC calls. Since the machines which which require this option do not support over 4G of RAM, this option is targeted for developers of these machines wishing to test changes on both 32-bit and 64-bit configurations.

If unsure, say N.

At one time I had run-time detection to detect if the machine was booted into wide mode it could detect if the pdc wrappers were needed. After some discussion, we decided to make it a compiler option since it added overhead to every pdc call and would rarely be used.

If the help text for this option needs to be clarified, please send me your comments and I'll update the help text. :)

Thanks,

- Ryan

Quoted 16 lines

I am pretty sure K/D/R-class boxes have a different source base for PDC which "properly" support wide-mode PDC calls.

thanks,
grant

Grant Grundler
parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker
+1.408.447.7253

_______________________________________________
parisc-linux mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.parisc-linux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux

#11 lore raw
In reply to Richard Hirst
Quoted 3 lines · Richard Hirst

IAOQ = _gsc_readl + 8
called from dino_in32()
I guess it was dino_in32(0xc1b21ec0), which looks odd.

It's definitely wrong. dino_in32() pokes dino to generate IO Port transactions and Dino lives in 0xF... address range. This suggests the pci_dev->sys_data is garbage (perhaps not initialized?) or points to garbage. Perhaps for Dino's built-in PS/2 or RS232 port?

Sorry, I didn't follow this thread earlier. Does console output hint which PCI device was involved (if any)?

Quoted 2 lines

Don't know why it should fail like that in the middle of the install. Is it repeatable?

If it's a problem with devices on-board Dino, I'd expect the problem to be reproducible but with different symptoms depending on what's in pci_dev.

grant

Grant Grundler
parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker
+1.408.447.7253

author
#12 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Grant Grundler
Quoted 3 lines · Richard Hirst

IAOQ = _gsc_readl + 8
called from dino_in32()
I guess it was dino_in32(0xc1b21ec0), which looks odd.

Quoted 7 lines

It's definitely wrong. dino_in32() pokes dino to generate IO Port transactions and Dino lives in 0xF... address range. This suggests the pci_dev->sys_data is garbage (perhaps not initialized?) or points to garbage. Perhaps for Dino's built-in PS/2 or RS232 port?

Sorry, I didn't follow this thread earlier. Does console output hint which PCI device was involved (if any)?

Not obviously, and it failed in the middle of the install, so presumably whatever device was involved had been accessed successfully earlier.

Richard

#13 lore raw

One piece of info that I did not include, which I thought might be relative to the ps/2 issue. I am not sure it is, but I do not have a keyboard or mouse connected on the c240. I was pretty sure that it would not be a problem, since it would be just like having a dumb terminal on it.

Quoted 18 lines · --- Richard Hirst
Quoted 4 lines · Grant Grundler
Quoted 3 lines · Richard Hirst

IAOQ = _gsc_readl + 8
called from dino_in32()
I guess it was dino_in32(0xc1b21ec0), which

looks odd.

Quoted 2 lines

It's definitely wrong. dino_in32() pokes dino to

generate IO Port

Quoted 1 line

transactions and Dino lives in 0xF... address

range. This suggests the

Quoted 1 line

pci_dev->sys_data is garbage (perhaps not

initialized?) or points to garbage.

Quoted 3 lines

Perhaps for Dino's built-in PS/2 or RS232 port?

Sorry, I didn't follow this thread earlier. Does

console output hint

Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 1 line

which PCI device was involved (if any)?

Not obviously, and it failed in the middle of the
install, so presumably
whatever device was involved had been accessed
successfully earlier.

Richard

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

author
#14 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · Charles Boone

One piece of info that I did not include, which I thought might be relative to the ps/2 issue. I am not sure it is, but I do not have a keyboard or mouse connected on the c240. I was pretty sure that it would not be a problem, since it would be just like having a dumb terminal on it.

I agree, that is unlikely to be a problem.

Richard