[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Help with OOPSes, anyone?

To: Pete Popov <>
Subject: Re: Help with OOPSes, anyone?
From: Matthew Dharm <>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:24:04 -0800
Cc: linux-mips <>
In-reply-to: <1012152783.2026.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>; from on Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 09:33:02AM -0800
Organization: Momentum Computer, Inc.
References: <> <1012152783.2026.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Well, we're using very late RM7000 silicon, so I doubt that's the problem.
But it's a good thing to look at, anyway.

Tho it kinda conflicts with the datapoint that we actually had a stable
kernel on this hardware before.  Tho, like I said, that's not much of a
datapoint -- more testing coming!


On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 09:33:02AM -0800, Pete Popov wrote:
> > But, under certain conditions, the kernel OOPSes.  Attached to this message
> > are a few of those OOPSes (serial console is wonderful!) along with the
> > ksymoops output.  I think the read_lsmod() warning is bogus, because there
> > are, actually, no modules loaded.
> > 
> > My instincts are telling me that these are all being caused by the same
> > problem, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what that is.  Caching is a
> > good suspect, but that's just because it's always a good suspect.
> Native compiles have indeed proven a great way to shake out hardware and
> software bugs. 
> One suggestion. The rm7k, at least some of the silicon versions, have
> hardware erratas with the 'wait' instruction, used in the cpu_idle()
> loop.  The CPU I have on one of the EV96100 boards, in combination with
> the gt96100, will hang hard every time if I don't disable the use of
> 'wait'.  So while this bug might not have anything to do with what
> you're observing, I would ifdef-out the 'wait' instruction in
> check_wait(), just to be sure that that's not the cause or one of the
> problems.
> Pete

Matthew Dharm                              Work:
Senior Software Designer, Momentum Computer

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>