Re: can't boot kernel 4.x on SX164
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 08:27:42PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:23:44PM -0500, Alex Winbow wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Helge Deller wrote:
> >
> > >On 20.02.2016 08:41, Michael Cree wrote:
> > >>On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:09:49AM -0500, Alex Winbow wrote:
> > >>> I'm unable to boot kernel 4.2 or 4.4 on SX164. aboot loads the kernel
> > >>>and the initrd successfully, then returns to the SRM prompt -- no
> > >>>error messages. (I'm using kernel 3.16 at present.)
> > >>> Are there any known issues with Linux 4.x over 3.x on alpha, or on
> > >>>SX164/EB164 in particular?
> > >>Yes, I have seen the same thing with the Debian 4.3 generic kernel.
> > >>But a self-built 4.3 kernel boots fine.
> >
> >
> > I'm glad to hear that self-built kernels do boot for both of y'all, so
> > there must be something in the kernel config that relates to the very early
> > kernel startup that is different for the generic Debian config vs. your own
> > configs. Any ideas what that might be? I guess I'll start by setting
> > machinetype from generic to SX164 and rebuilding.
>
> Yes, that is worth trying. I had built kernels for dp264 and titan
> and they are working.
>
> > Possibly related:
> > Are you both using aboot 0.9b? I found the following post on LKML:
>
> ii aboot 1.0~pre20040408-4 alpha Linux bootloader for the SRM console
Alex,
I'd definitely try the newer "aboot" version, but you report making it past
the kernel+initrd load successfully. Back in 2007 when the rest of the
Alpha community was having boot problems, we saw "unzip: invalid exec header"
with an earlier message from "aboot" having the template
aboot: Can't load kernel.
Memory at %lx - %lx (chunk %i) is %s
While you probably need to be running the current "aboot", I suspect
you're on the right track as far as something in the generic alpha
kernel being the issue. For what it's worth, I've been running
self-built kernels from the official kernel.org source tree since I
first installed Debian on my Alpha way back when. My machine is no
speed-demon either: builds are an overnight proposition, but they aren't
anywhere near the 30 hours you're reporting :-(.
Good luck to you!
--Bob
Reply to: