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

Re: AlphaServer GS140 (8400)



Hi,


On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 05:40:47PM -0500, Kelledin wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 September 2003 05:22 pm, Pasi Pirhonen wrote:
> >
> > No it's not. This is AlphaServer 8400 (upgraded to GS140) and
> > you're talking about GS160, which is AFAIK different machine.
> 
> Ah sorry, my bad.  I apparently misread it. :/

nope

> 
> As for the GS140/8400...Linux support is apparently not so great. 
> :(  To the best of my knowledge, the problem is supporting the 
> PCI buses in that thing.  If a generic kernel doesn't work, it's 
> liable to require some kernel hacking to fix this.
> 
> Perhaps we could get the docs from HP?  This is an ancient 
> machine, but you never know.
> 

I really don't know what HP is doing. As they are obviously supporting
linux/alpha and they have all the documentation. The problem might be
the will for supporting this kind of archs. Don't really know about
that either. Compaq previously released even 'RedHat 7.2', which is
mark for 'support', but is it potically correct to let linux run on
this kind of hardware :)


> The show-stopper isn't bootstrapping from SRM to the Linux kernel 
> so much as it is getting the Linux kernel to actually deal with 
> the machine.  So that leaves testing via bootfloppy as an 
> option, so that's a little more convenient.  Just start with a 
> kernel compiled for SMP-generic and work from there.

MOP would be much more easy to boot it up for testing that any floppy
will ever be.

The idea for my posting was basically 'there is machine if someone has
some wild ideas for testing code'

> 
> Somehow, I NEVER heard of alilo, even booting Woody on my Alpha?  
> Maybe I missed it.  I've been using aboot.

my bad this time. I ment aboot naturally. From my PC-based background i
traslated it as 'Alpha bootloader as Alpha LILO' :)

-- 
                          o
               ___o     </\_    upi@iki.fi
   /\o_      _ \<,_   __/\      <URL: http://iki.fi/upi/ >
^^^^^^^^^^  (*)/ (*)     /



Reply to: