I've applied issue 26, restoring CAR. Builds of arima/hdama and tyan/2895 are fine. Will test next week.
I hope this doesn't break anyone too much, but this was needed. Man, builds without romcc are a lot faster ...
ron
Good, I will polulate to other Tyan MB.
with two way dual core system and with make -j every MB with CAR only need 6s to build.
Can you look at the acpi, I have seperate that to core, and MB..., in the isssue tracker...
YH
On 11/23/05, Ronald G Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
I've applied issue 26, restoring CAR. Builds of arima/hdama and tyan/2895 are fine. Will test next week.
I hope this doesn't break anyone too much, but this was needed. Man, builds without romcc are a lot faster ...
ron
yhlu wrote:
Can you look at the acpi, I have seperate that to core, and MB..., in the isssue tracker...
which isssues are these, and ... are these related to the tarball you sent me 11/19?
I am going offline in a bit ... it's vacation time. Will look at these monday. Let me know which issues you want us to look at next, and if any issues on the tracker should be ignored/retired.
thanks
ron
wait... before you go, apply acpi patch....
YH
On 11/23/05, Ronald G Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
yhlu wrote:
Can you look at the acpi, I have seperate that to core, and MB..., in the isssue tracker...
which isssues are these, and ... are these related to the tarball you sent me 11/19?
I am going offline in a bit ... it's vacation time. Will look at these monday. Let me know which issues you want us to look at next, and if any issues on the tracker should be ignored/retired.
thanks
ron
yhlu wrote:
wait... before you go, apply acpi patch....
is this issue 24? And, of the 3 patches, which one is critical?
Or is this the tarball you sent? What do you want applied?
thanks
ron
a_s1_core.diff and a_s1_mb.diff
So I can produce next patch shorter...
YH
On 11/23/05, Ronald G Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
yhlu wrote:
wait... before you go, apply acpi patch....
is this issue 24? And, of the 3 patches, which one is critical?
Or is this the tarball you sent? What do you want applied?
thanks
ron
yhlu wrote:
a_s1_core.diff and a_s1_mb.diff
That went very badly:
[rminnich@q LinuxBIOSv2]$ patch -p1 < /tmp/a_s1_core.diff patching file src/arch/i386/boot/acpi.c patching file src/arch/i386/include/arch/acpi.h Hunk #3 succeeded at 114 with fuzz 1. Hunk #4 succeeded at 134 (offset 1 line). Hunk #6 succeeded at 285 (offset 1 line). patching file src/config/Options.lb Hunk #1 succeeded at 778 (offset -4 lines). patching file src/include/device/path.h patching file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/amdk8_acpi.c patching file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/Config.lb patching file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/get_sblk_pci1234.c patching file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/northbridge.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 692 with fuzz 2 (offset -102 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 810 (offset 1 line). Hunk #3 succeeded at 720 with fuzz 2 (offset -104 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 841 (offset 4 lines). Hunk #5 FAILED at 1033. 1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/northbridge.c.rej patching file src/southbridge/amd/amd8111/amd8111_acpi.c Hunk #2 succeeded at 123 (offset 1 line). patching file src/southbridge/amd/amd8132/amd8132_bridge.c patching file src/southbridge/amd/amd8132/Config.lb
I looked atthe HUNKS that failed on northbridge.c and see no obvious way to fix it.
If anyone else wants to take a look, be my guest; I'm done for the night. good luck.
ron
that is used to store node id and coreid to the apic path. for core0 and core1, if core1 apic id path is created there bus_cpu_scan...
Because LNXI create the core1 apic id path in core0 of amd_sibling_init, in that case need to store nodeid and coreid too...
I hope you can look the my northbridge.c to create core1 apic id patch in bus_cpu_scan ...
So You can disable CPU_INIT_SERIALIZE for big SMP system...
YH
On 11/23/05, Ronald G Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
yhlu wrote:
a_s1_core.diff and a_s1_mb.diff
That went very badly:
[rminnich@q LinuxBIOSv2]$ patch -p1 < /tmp/a_s1_core.diff patching file src/arch/i386/boot/acpi.c patching file src/arch/i386/include/arch/acpi.h Hunk #3 succeeded at 114 with fuzz 1. Hunk #4 succeeded at 134 (offset 1 line). Hunk #6 succeeded at 285 (offset 1 line). patching file src/config/Options.lb Hunk #1 succeeded at 778 (offset -4 lines). patching file src/include/device/path.h patching file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/amdk8_acpi.c patching file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/Config.lb patching file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/get_sblk_pci1234.c patching file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/northbridge.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 692 with fuzz 2 (offset -102 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 810 (offset 1 line). Hunk #3 succeeded at 720 with fuzz 2 (offset -104 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 841 (offset 4 lines). Hunk #5 FAILED at 1033. 1 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/northbridge/amd/amdk8/northbridge.c.rej patching file src/southbridge/amd/amd8111/amd8111_acpi.c Hunk #2 succeeded at 123 (offset 1 line). patching file src/southbridge/amd/amd8132/amd8132_bridge.c patching file src/southbridge/amd/amd8132/Config.lb
I looked atthe HUNKS that failed on northbridge.c and see no obvious way to fix it.
If anyone else wants to take a look, be my guest; I'm done for the night. good luck.
ron
The attach file is VSM initialization code in protect mode, verified working with SYSMGR VSM on a GX2/5535 system, hope helpful for those guys porting GX2 system. It suppose VSM has been loaded to D0000.
Jianwei
* Ronald G Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov [051123 22:09]:
yhlu wrote:
Can you look at the acpi, I have seperate that to core, and MB..., in the isssue tracker...
which isssues are these, and ... are these related to the tarball you sent me 11/19?
I am going offline in a bit ... it's vacation time. Will look at these monday. Let me know which issues you want us to look at next, and if any issues on the tracker should be ignored/retired.
There's a superseeder field in the tracker to mark bugs which replace others.
Stefan
-
Jia Jianwei -
Ronald G Minnich -
Stefan Reinauer -
yhlu