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. Pete > > Matt > > -- > 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:ppopov@pacbell.net] > > 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 > > >
