[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SB1250 locking up in init on current 2.6.16 kernel

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: SB1250 locking up in init on current 2.6.16 kernel
From: Larry Stefani <>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=xCBNhWpKinYwWrVvE1Uft9KGjTtZxt3g4fLPn/rjRmDA6K+sN1agoijgRQYs+RIgIIhruDSUXidESuHIwJJ8q05/w71YSGb0eQBTMPTuA0gXFkoooie/8tjkvSWhoLRoN5h3DU151KFKXteS111lV/m/mKh9Gz3fOpXMhQFNPIQ=;
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
Resent-date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:38:23 +0100
Resent-message-id: <>
Hello Ralf,

Thank you very much for the quick response.  I know
you must be terribly busy with the server move, so I
won't take up too much more of your time.

I did find an old (possibly related) discussion you
were involved in:

I can't tell from the thread whether it was a problem
seen on, but that might have been tip at the

> It's a bug which should be fixed but nevertheless I
> can highly recommend
> something like a SiliconImage SATA controller - the
> onboard PIO PATA
> controller is so slow.

I understand, but changing that is not an option for
me today.

> I've pushed the tag again so now there is a tarball.

Thanks.  I thought something was terribly wrong with
.28 for it to be skipped.  

> If you need to track something like this you're
> probably best with
> git bisect which should bring you right to the
> offending commit.

I probably should have used that approach instead of
diffing .27 and .29 and narrowing the file list by
hand.  As it was, there were changes to non-MIPS
platforms and devices I'm not using so those were easy
to apply to .27.  Also, there were many file changes
for MT SMP support, and *most* (but not all) of those
changes were wrapped with conditional compiles, so
those were also easy to apply.  I knew once I got to
these five files I was in some interesting code that
could point to the problems I'm seeing.

> Later kernels do run on bcm1480 which is close
> enough.

By "later kernels", do you mean or different
kernel branches?

Perhaps, but I'm seeing identical failures in .29 and
.60, although that could be misleading.  I do see
significant SMP-related changes in c-sb1.c between .29
and .60, and I am running in SMP.  I wish there was an
easy way to know whether it's in the same code.

Anyway, in the interest of time I may revert to .27
which appears to work.  I don't need any of the MT SMP
related changes that followed, and perhaps I can live
without the enhancements between .27 and .60 for now.

Larry Stefani

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>