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

Re: iBook 2.2 with new board, full of problems

Alberto Viniegra Ilarregui <lobezno@toughguy.net> schrieb:
> Hi Kristian.
> revision        : 2.3 (pvr 7000 0203)****do you use same revision?????
> bogomips        : 1785.85
> machine         : PowerBook4,3
> motherboard     : PowerBook4,3 MacRISC2 MacRISC Power Macintosh

As you can see we both have the same machine:

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo 
cpu             : 750FX
temperature     : 12 C (uncalibrated)
clock           : 400MHz
revision        : 2.3 (pvr 7000 0203)
bogomips        : 792.25
machine         : PowerBook4,3
motherboard     : PowerBook4,3 MacRISC2 MacRISC Power Macintosh
board revision  : 00000002
detected as     : 257 (iBook 2 rev. 2)
pmac flags      : 0000000b
L2 cache        : 512K unified
memory          : 640MB
pmac-generation : NewWorld

$ uname -a
Linux lupine 2.4.21-ben2 #1 Mon Jun 30 12:55:09 BST 2003 ppc GNU/Linux

> This is the only difference I have with a friend's ibook, he dont have
> problems, and I am only getting problems now with new revision board.
> please look for your revision and send me the /proc/cpuinfo.

Does he use the same envirenment ? gcc 3.3 maybe does not produce the best code.. Your experimental XFree packages seems also be a candidate for crashing.

> I use Linux 2.6.3-ben2, gcc3.3.3, XFree86 Version (DRI trunk),
> Gnome2.4 
> I am not sure if it is a hardware failure issue, maybe my new board is
> not fully supported?, cause osx works fine, I am testing with gcc and
> till now works, but I only compiled small soft, like wget, bash.
> I'm going to try with x server, and reproduce the bug, if not... It must
> be a linux ussue with my new board may be?

iBooks do not have a serial console.. That's really bad. Maybe you'd have catched a kernel core dump... Does it help when you switch to an official 2.4 kernel ?



  :... [snd.science] ...:
 ::                             _o)
 :: http://www.korseby.net      /\\
 ::                            _\_V

Reply to: