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

Re: Can't boot a kernel under SRM

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:06:05AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I got my SRM booting problem fixed (turned out I needed to set os_type).
> > My next problem is that neither IDE nor SCSI works on my LX164 system
> > when booted from SRM.
> > On the IDE side, I am getting a lot of "irq timeout" errors, and
> > sometimes I get "timeout waiting for DMA".  The system might eventually
> > boot, or it might not.
> > The SCSI problems depend on which kernel version I try.  In 2.6, it
> > locks hard.  In 2.4.22 from the "business card" Debian-installer test
> > image, I get:
> > CACHE TEST FAILED: script execution failed
> > start=53c2ae64, pc=53c2ae64, end=5ec2a90
> > I have a Symbios 53c875 card.
> Depending on your hardware config, you may need to back down to 2.4.20
> or 2.4.19 (I forget which) to get something bootable.  I've been told,
> and have realized now that I can confirm, that later 2.4-series kernels
> have trouble talking across PCI bridges on alphas.  I would hope
> someone's working on fixing this, but I know that neither 2.4.22 nor
> 2.4.23 can handle my ethernet/scsi card (an integrated tulip/qlogicisp
> device, no idea if it has a proper name :).

Well, I have 2.4.21-preX (I don't know off hand which) running fine on
my LX, a 2.4.23 however dies in detecting the adaptec driver (which
worked fine before). IDE looks to work fine however, after I disabled
"Use DMA by default if available". I did not yet have time to figure
out what exactly happened. I have the exact error message at home so I
cannot reproduce it right now. This is on an LX.



Helge Kreutzmann, Dipl.-Phys.               Helge.Kreutzmann@itp.uni-hannover.de
  gpg signed mail preferred    gpg-key: finger kreutzm@rigel.itp.uni-hannover.de
    64bit GNU powered                  http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~kreutzm
       Help keep free software "libre": http://www.freepatents.org/

Attachment: pgpvZJsP3Pj3D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: