[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: UP1100 system



On 10 Sep 2002, Jeffrey Bridge wrote:

> I recently got a UP1100 system and it has been giving me a hell of a
> time trying to get it to boot properly. If anybody could give me any
> help with these issues, it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> 1. in what manner do I unpack the zip file of the firmware onto a floppy
> disk? stick a fat12 on it and just unzip into there, or what?

Yes, a fat floppy should be fine.

> 2. hopefully flashing it will fix this issue, but most times I turn it
> on it does not bring up the VGA but sits there with the red mobo light
> on and the speaker either on constantly or beeping four times and the
> stopping. this thing doesn't do anybody any good if it doesn't freaking
> get into the SRM console at least.
>
> 3. when it doesn't bring up the VGA, is there the possibility that it
> has reverted to a serial console? if so, what settings should I use on
> the terminal emulator to be able to view that properly?

If it's beeping, No. The beeping means it's not happy. Look up the beep
codes in the manual to see what that means. Check your memory is seated
properly (Alpha beeps are usually memory related).

> 4. the rare times that I have managed to get it to boot, whenever the
> kernel being booted is a 2.4 kernel, it seems to go really slow on the
> IDE detection and in fact hang up, at least to the point where the
> keyboard doesn't really do any good. what IDE options should I compile
> the kernel with to make it not lock up on the ALi?

Make sure you've for SRM support compiled into the kernel or interupts
won't work.

> 5. with both kernel 2.2 and 2.4, I get ~309192 bogomips. What. the.
> heck.

Your board is not happy about something. Also you can do a show config
from inside SRM and that should show you what speed the CPU is running at.
Something isn't right about this board.....EV6s usually get a Bogomips
around 2x CPU speed.

Rich Payne
http://talisman.mv.com
rdp at talisman dot mv dot com




Reply to: