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

Re: iMac G5 "windfarm"



Hi Mathieu,


On 12/30/20 10:22 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
There was a regression at some point, did you check:

*https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2020/03/msg00035.html

What's your kernel version ?


Right now, it apparently is an older version:

Linux PPC970FX 4.16.0-1-powerpc64 #1 SMP Debian 4.16.5-1 (2018-04-29) ppc64 GNU/Linux

which appears to be around the critical one cited there about issues. However, theere the issue was "windfarm not loaded". To me here it seems to be loaded, to be almost too aggressive.

In lsmod I see.

windfarm_cpufreq_clamp     3213  1
windfarm_smu_sat        7464  0
windfarm_smu_sensors     7223  6
windfarm_smu_controls     7878  3
windfarm_pm121         12261  0
windfarm_pid            2995  1 windfarm_pm121


I installed also a newer kernel:

-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   169543 Apr 29  2018 config-4.16.0-1-powerpc64
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       28 Dec 29 18:21 initrd.img -> initrd.img-5.9.0-5-powerpc64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 24420098 Dec 29 18:22 initrd.img-4.16.0-1-powerpc64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27346593 Dec 29 18:22 initrd.img-5.9.0-5-powerpc64
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       29 Dec 29 14:16 initrd.img.old -> initrd.img-4.16.0-1-powerpc64
drwx------ 2 root root    12288 Dec 29 14:09 lost+found
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  4126454 Apr 29  2018 System.map-4.16.0-1-powerpc64
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       25 Dec 29 18:21 vmlinux -> vmlinux-5.9.0-5-powerpc64
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 25371992 Apr 29  2018 vmlinux-4.16.0-1-powerpc64
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root       26 Dec 29 14:16 vmlinux.old -> vmlinux-4.16.0-1-powerpc64


But yaboot doesn't find it, so I have to boot "old". Maybe this is part of the issue.

TO me vimlinux seems as correct as vmlinux.old

yaboot has:

image=/vmlinux
    label=Linux
    read-only
    initrd=/initrd.img

image=/vmlinux.old
    label=old
    read-only
    initrd=/initrd.img.old


so it looks all fine to me, why should "old" work and Linux not?


Riccardo


Reply to: