I have been following the AIX booting issue for a while now and was wondering if there is any progress. I have access to AIX hardware and I am happy to help test.
Thanks
Shane
Hello Shane,
Am 07.01.2011 um 23:03 schrieb Grieve, Shane:
I have been following the AIX booting issue for a while now and was wondering if there is any progress. I have access to AIX hardware and I am happy to help test.
The next open issue still is the prom_arg_t ppc64 incompatibility. The patches are in need of review, in particular I'm waiting for feedback from Blue whose suggestions I tried to pick up in v2. Those patches may then need rebasing since Mark incorporated PRI*32 additions into a sparc32 commit recently.
The SF bit patch v3 should be irrelevant, it's low on my list and my time a little short currently.
Once these general ppc64 issues are settled, we need to agree on how to go about adding real support for RTAS to OpenBIOS (e.g., review the linker script I played with) and - the more complicated part - add a suitable CHRP machine emulation to QEMU.
Feel invited to test the available patches. Although for me it's actually more interesting to hear if non-AIX and non-ppc guests still work.
Regards, Andreas
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Andreas Färber andreas.faerber@web.de wrote:
Hello Shane,
Am 07.01.2011 um 23:03 schrieb Grieve, Shane:
I have been following the AIX booting issue for a while now and was wondering if there is any progress. I have access to AIX hardware and I am happy to help test.
The next open issue still is the prom_arg_t ppc64 incompatibility. The patches are in need of review, in particular I'm waiting for feedback from Blue whose suggestions I tried to pick up in v2. Those patches may then need rebasing since Mark incorporated PRI*32 additions into a sparc32 commit recently.
Which patches? I thought I had commented on all of them.
Am 12.01.2011 um 19:58 schrieb Blue Swirl:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de
wrote: Am 07.01.2011 um 23:03 schrieb Grieve, Shane:
I have been following the AIX booting issue for a while now and was wondering if there is any progress. I have access to AIX hardware and I am happy to help test.
The next open issue still is the prom_arg_t ppc64 incompatibility. The patches are in need of review, in particular I'm waiting for feedback from Blue whose suggestions I tried to pick up in v2. Those patches may then need rebasing since Mark incorporated PRI*32 additions into a sparc32 commit recently.
Which patches? I thought I had commented on all of them.
http://lists.openbios.org/pipermail/openbios/2010-December/006028.html http://lists.openbios.org/pipermail/openbios/2010-December/006029.html
The only comment was from Mark concerning obsoleted v1. And since this touches a central part of OpenBIOS I don't just commit that without acks.
I'll try to look into upstreaming all the PRI* stuff this weekend, which are semi-correct in SVN.
Andreas
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Andreas Färber andreas.faerber@web.de wrote:
Am 12.01.2011 um 19:58 schrieb Blue Swirl:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Andreas Färber andreas.faerber@web.de wrote:
Am 07.01.2011 um 23:03 schrieb Grieve, Shane:
I have been following the AIX booting issue for a while now and was wondering if there is any progress. I have access to AIX hardware and I am happy to help test.
The next open issue still is the prom_arg_t ppc64 incompatibility. The patches are in need of review, in particular I'm waiting for feedback from Blue whose suggestions I tried to pick up in v2. Those patches may then need rebasing since Mark incorporated PRI*32 additions into a sparc32 commit recently.
Which patches? I thought I had commented on all of them.
http://lists.openbios.org/pipermail/openbios/2010-December/006028.html http://lists.openbios.org/pipermail/openbios/2010-December/006029.html
The only comment was from Mark concerning obsoleted v1. And since this touches a central part of OpenBIOS I don't just commit that without acks.
I'll try to look into upstreaming all the PRI* stuff this weekend, which are semi-correct in SVN.
The patches do not apply anymore, but they look OK to me.
Output formatting for 64 bit types is a bit tricky with system types. Sometimes on 64 bit machines, long is used for int64_t and so %llx generates a warning. In other cases, long long is used and so %lx is not correct. I think the patches are always using long long, so they should be OK.
Am 29.01.2011 um 17:19 schrieb Blue Swirl:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de
wrote: Am 12.01.2011 um 19:58 schrieb Blue Swirl:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@web.de
wrote:
Am 07.01.2011 um 23:03 schrieb Grieve, Shane:
I have been following the AIX booting issue for a while now and was wondering if there is any progress. I have access to AIX hardware and I am happy to help test.
The next open issue still is the prom_arg_t ppc64 incompatibility. The patches are in need of review, in particular I'm waiting for feedback from Blue whose suggestions I tried to pick up in v2. Those patches may then need rebasing since Mark incorporated PRI*32 additions into a sparc32 commit recently.
Which patches? I thought I had commented on all of them.
http://lists.openbios.org/pipermail/openbios/2010-December/ 006028.html http://lists.openbios.org/pipermail/openbios/2010-December/ 006029.html
The only comment was from Mark concerning obsoleted v1. And since this touches a central part of OpenBIOS I don't just commit that without acks.
I'll try to look into upstreaming all the PRI* stuff this weekend, which are semi-correct in SVN.
The patches do not apply anymore, but they look OK to me.
Output formatting for 64 bit types is a bit tricky with system types. Sometimes on 64 bit machines, long is used for int64_t and so %llx generates a warning. In other cases, long long is used and so %lx is not correct. I think the patches are always using long long, so they should be OK.
Blame Mark. ;) Seriously, everything else was automatically git-rebase- able, I've pushed a testable version: http://repo.or.cz/w/openbios/afaerber.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ppc64-boot
Not sure what you're referring to above. I don't think I modified the type definitions, I went with what they were defined like. Most are long long as you say, but that's something I would like to be able to change in the future. Thus, I'm defining the cell types in term of POSIX integer types, using their PRI* macros to get away from the ll vs. l issue. Refactoring that into a separate patch now.
As for the client interface part, I take it that this still makes sense despite the ppc64 cell width discussion and will work towards committing.
Andreas
On 30/01/11 15:48, Andreas Färber wrote:
Blame Mark. ;) Seriously, everything else was automatically git-rebase-able, I've pushed a testable version: http://repo.or.cz/w/openbios/afaerber.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ppc64-boot
This is likely my lack of git-fu, but when I try and do "git clone http://repo.or.cz/w/openbios/afaerber.git" then I get the following message:
warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout.
Can anyone point me in the right direction as to what git commands I should be issuing?
ATB,
Mark.
Le dimanche 30 janvier 2011 à 18:50 +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland a écrit :
On 30/01/11 15:48, Andreas Färber wrote:
Blame Mark. ;) Seriously, everything else was automatically git-rebase-able, I've pushed a testable version: http://repo.or.cz/w/openbios/afaerber.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ppc64-boot
This is likely my lack of git-fu, but when I try and do "git clone http://repo.or.cz/w/openbios/afaerber.git" then I get the following message:
git clone git://repo.or.cz/openbios/afaerber.git
warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout.
Can anyone point me in the right direction as to what git commands I should be issuing?
ATB,
Mark.
-- Mark Cave-Ayland - Senior Technical Architect PostgreSQL - PostGIS Sirius Corporation plc - control through freedom http://www.siriusit.co.uk t: +44 870 608 0063
Sirius Labs: http://www.siriusit.co.uk/labs
On 30/01/11 19:52, Laurent Vivier wrote:
This is likely my lack of git-fu, but when I try and do "git clone http://repo.or.cz/w/openbios/afaerber.git" then I get the following message:
git clone git://repo.or.cz/openbios/afaerber.git
Hmmmm that's weird - the http URL appeared to work (as I ended up with a .git/config file) but it seems the host doesn't support it on the server? The above works though.
ATB,
Mark.
On 30/01/11 15:48, Andreas Färber wrote:
Blame Mark. ;) Seriously, everything else was automatically git-rebase-able, I've pushed a testable version: http://repo.or.cz/w/openbios/afaerber.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ppc64-boot
Not sure what you're referring to above. I don't think I modified the type definitions, I went with what they were defined like. Most are long long as you say, but that's something I would like to be able to change in the future. Thus, I'm defining the cell types in term of POSIX integer types, using their PRI* macros to get away from the ll vs. l issue. Refactoring that into a separate patch now.
As for the client interface part, I take it that this still makes sense despite the ppc64 cell width discussion and will work towards committing.
I've just tested your ppc64-boot branch here and it works fine on SPARC64 (and still builds okay on SPARC32 even though it doesn't use CIF). If everyone else is happy, I'm happy.
ATB,
Mark.
Hey,
Am 31.01.2011 um 10:59 schrieb Mark Cave-Ayland:
On 30/01/11 15:48, Andreas Färber wrote:
http://repo.or.cz/w/openbios/afaerber.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ppc64-boot
I've just tested your ppc64-boot branch here and it works fine on SPARC64 (and still builds okay on SPARC32 even though it doesn't use CIF). If everyone else is happy, I'm happy.
On the way back from FOSDEM I shuffled some patches, which I committed yesterday.
If you change your config file to use grubfs' iso9660, from r1028 on you should be able to boot AIX/ppc64 up to the point where it detects lack of /rtas.
Have fun,
Andreas
On 11/01/11 21:19, Andreas Färber wrote:
The next open issue still is the prom_arg_t ppc64 incompatibility. The patches are in need of review, in particular I'm waiting for feedback from Blue whose suggestions I tried to pick up in v2. Those patches may then need rebasing since Mark incorporated PRI*32 additions into a sparc32 commit recently.
Ah okay - I didn't realise you were waiting either. I can test and make sure it doesn't break SPARC64. In turn, could you take a look at patch 6/6 of my recent SPARC32/OFMEM fixes, as I believe since PPC64 still has a ucell/cell size of 32-bits and so it will affect the generation of the memory properties there (i.e. the top address will be truncated to 32-bits).
ATB,
Mark.
-
Andreas Färber -
Blue Swirl -
Grieve, Shane -
Laurent Vivier -
Mark Cave-Ayland