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

Bug#1033058: Booting mini.iso : kernel hangs on ppc64el



Thanks Cyril.
Another important detail ... I only get that behavior in qemu in
graphical mode.
On LPARs there is no issue. I didn't try on baremetal so far.

F.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 17:44:49 +0100 Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Frédéric Bonnard <frediz@debian.org> (2023-03-17):
> > > It would be helpful to confirm which exact kernel version is getting
> > > used in both cases (last 6.1.0-4 working, and first 6.1.0-5 not
> > > working), then look at the changes between both versions, in src:linux
> > > (and resulting udebs).
> > 
> > From linux changelog (
> > https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/l/linux/changelog-6.1.15-1 )
> > and http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/,
> > I see :
> > 6.1.11-1 -> Bump ABI to 4 http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20230211T151657Z/
> > 6.1.12-1 -> Bump ABI to 5 http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20230217T033139Z/
> > 
> > and tested from those (rebuilding the same d-i source with the 2 kernels
> > from snapshot.d.o . 6.1.12-1 clearly doesn't work.
> > I had already have a look at the kernel changelog but missed that one :
> > ---
> > linux (6.1.12-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> > ...
> >     - of: Make OF framebuffer device names unique
> > ...
> > ---
> > 
> > I recompiled the kernel deb source without that one (
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/241d2fb56a18473af5f2ff0d512992a996eb64dd.patch
> > ) and the mini.iso actually made it to the menu... and given the
> > behaviour, a framebuffer actually makes sense.
> > 
> > Now, that patch does not harm when the kernel is installed on disk.
> > But it does in the installer...
> 
> Adding the kernel team to the loop: d-i regression on ppc64el.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: