Frankly, I'm not entirely certain which version the Montavista kernel
is. We were supposed to be doing the software validation for
PMC-Sierra (who contracted to Montavista for the work), so this is one
of the later kernels from that process. But I really don't know
exactly which one...
As for the 'wait' thing... forgot to try that one. How does one go
about disabling the wait instruction, anyway?
Matthew D. Dharm Senior Software Designer
Momentum Computer Inc. 1815 Aston Ave. Suite 107
(760) 431-8663 X-115 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7310
Momentum Works For You www.momenco.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Popov [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 3:55 PM
> To: Matthew Dharm
> Cc: linux-mips
> Subject: RE: Help with OOPSes, anyone?
> On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 15:31, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > Well, here's the latest test results...
> > The 2.4.0 kernel from MontaVista seems to work just fine.
> Of course,
> > it doesn't have support for the full range of interrupts,
> but that's a
> > separate matter. But it doesn't crash under big compiles.
> 2.4.0 from MontaVista? Do you mean the very first release, which was
> > 2.4.17 with CONFIG_MIPS_UNCACHED crashes. It takes
> longer, but that
> > may just be a function of it running so much slower. The BogoMIPS
> > drops by a factor of 100. Ouch.
> > So it doesn't look like a cache problem after all. And it does
> > suggest that something introduced between 2.4.0 and .17
> is what broke
> > things. But what that is, I have no idea.
> > I'm going to try Jason's modified cache code just in
> case, but I doubt
> > that will change anything. We'll have to see, tho.
> > Does anyone have any other suggestions to try? I'm
> starting to wonder
> > if perhaps the PROM isn't setting up the SDRAM properly, but that
> > conflicts with the working 2.4.0 kernel -- the PROM is the same in
> > both cases, so I would expect a PROM error to affect both
> > I'm running out of ideas here... anyone?
> If you're absolutely sure 2.4.0-test9 doesn't crash (you
> ran the test
> "enough" times), perhaps you can start testing kernels
> between 2.4.0 and
> 2.4.17. And, you did get rid of the 'wait' instruction in 2.4.17,
> right ;-)?