Re: Tao U3 x86_64 new install hangs?

> On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:32:29PM +0100, Remco Barendse wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004, Remco Barendse wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Pasi Pirhonen wrote:
>>>
>>
>> OK, my remark wasn't particularly bright, guess I wasn't fully awake yet
>> :0)  The installer poot noapic with the grub kernel options.
>>
>> Some questions about the board though. Neither the realtek LAN nor the
>> Marvell 88E1111 LAN port work. Both fail to get an ip.
>>
>> When I do cat /proc/interrupts eth0 is on interrupt 16 and eth1 on
>> interrupt 22. I guess that's not corrcet when apic is not used?
>>
>> The bios of the K8N Neo2 has an option 'APIC function' which is currently
>> enabled. Should I set it to Disabled if we do noapic? I tried setting it
>> to disable but when the box is booting it hangs on detecting apic CPU#0:
>> NMI appears to be stuck. If APIC function is to be left enables should MPS
>> be set to 1.4 or 1.1?
>>
>
>
> I do have Via KT800 board with Marvel and that just desn't work when
> 'noapic' is in effect. Haven't investigated that too much (i do
> remember that the Via integrated 10/100 didn't work either while
> noapci).
>
> The good news (maybe) being that the -27 level code might be working
> w/o defining 'noapic' for NForce3. I did have mystical hangs with the
> beta-level kernels while running it, but that might have been the
> 'redhat integrated forcedeth code' as i ran that box with that too. I
> didn't have time for unstable box and i reverted to my own kernels.

Great! I downloaded the kernel and indeed the box now runs without 
specifying noapic and I get errors from the Realtek LAN card (which is 
correct because no cable is attached to it) and the Marvell nForce 
ethernet card works!!

Thanks for this excellent support :)

> It's the machine which is used to build all Tao/x86-64 updates, so i
> don't want to find it 'dead while i try to reach it out of home and
> needing to build something quickly'.
>
>
> I do remember it hanging w/ and w/o 'noapic' tho after day or two of
> uptime and being absolutely stable after getting back to my own
> codebase.
>
>
> So the already mentioned 2.4.21-27.300.EC might get your ethernet
> working. That kernel is out soonish (after build i do need to test a
> little more myself tho). Few hours or so.

Given the above remarks, is the unstable kernel the 27.300 one or a 
different one?


> I think i'll start to spam mailing list when ever i do have something
> new on this side as there seems to be enought users using *EC* line of
> kernels.

Looking forward to the spam :)

Cheers!
Remco