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

Re: Proposed build system: PREP



On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:43:59AM +0100, Leigh Brown wrote:
> Sven Luther said:
> > Could you test the prep kernel at :
> > http://people.debian.org/~luther/powerpc/2.4.22, and instruct us about :
> >
> >   1) The different method of booting from a prep system.
> >
> >   2) if there are auto-booting CDroms, or if you just have to enter the
> >   right value from the OF (in case you have an OF).
> >
> >   3) the output of your /proc/cpuinfo.
> >
> >   4) do you believe they are smp prep systems ?
> >
> > And if you would volunteer to test some of our debian-installers setups
> > when they are ready, it would be real nice.
> 
> Hi Sven,
> 
> I know there are several RS/6000 PReP systems around, and that there

Mmm, i thought all RS/6000 where chrp, and using the chrp-rs6k kernel.

> are people running Debian on them.  The 7043-140 should boot okay on
> the 2.4.22 kernel, and I'll try your test kernel when I get a chance,
> on mine.  There are also some other RS/6000 PReP models that work, but
> require some kernel patches.  They are:
> 
> 7248-133
> 7024-E20
> 7024-E30
> 7025-F30
> 7025-F40
> 7043-240
> 
> There might be others.
> 
> All these RS/6000's can boot off CD-ROM if the PReP kernel has been
> configured using the mkisofs -prep-boot option.  The 7034-240 and
> 7025-F40 support up to two CPUs, but the PReP boot loader doesn't
> know how to bootstrap the second CPUs on these machines.

Mmm, So, to get the iso to autoboot on those, an option to mkisofs would
be enough, but i guess this is not compatible to pmac autobooting, is it ?

> I also have a Motorola PowerStack that is PReP, and it should work
> with a stock kernel as well.  There is support in the PReP boot
> loader for an SMP Motorola machine, but I've never seen such a
> beast.

Ok.

Thanks for your information, i will ask again once we have a somewhat
more mature ubarch friendly owerpc debian-installer for people to test.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: