On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 16:09, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> 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...
It's probably 2.4.2 based, but it could be 2.4.0-test9. On the target,
type "uname --all"
> As for the 'wait' thing... forgot to try that one. How does one go
> about disabling the wait instruction, anyway?
arch/mips/kernel/setup.c, in the function check_wait(), ifdef-out the
RM7000 case so that 'wait' is not available.
> 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:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > 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
> > 2.4.0-test9?
> > > 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
> > versions.
> > >
> > > 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 ;-)?
> > Pete