On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 10:23 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Norbert Kiesel wrote: > > > > Ok, I applied the patch and I'm running it right now, so far so good. > > Here is the the output of lspci from the patched 2.6.13.1 (not sure if a > > diff to the unpatched 2.6.13.1 or the 2.6.12.5 would be more useful, so > > I settled for no diff :-). > > Yes, now it looks better, except for a lspci quirk. You have: > > > 0000:00:10.0 RAID bus controller: Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 0649 > > Ultra ATA/100 PCI to ATA Host Controller (rev 01) > > and lspci reports: > > > Expansion ROM at 40000000 [disabled] [size=512K] > > where the "disabled" comes from the fact that it looks at the sysfs data > structures, and the resource is indeed marked as disabled there (because > nothing enabled it explicitly). > > But then reading the HW registers, we see: > > > 30: 01 00 00 40 60 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0c 01 02 04 > > Ie now the ROM address value is 0x40000001, which means that as far as the > _hardware_ is concerned, the ROM is actually enabled. > > That's because the cmd64x driver enabled the ROM by just writing the > enable bit directly, and never actually told the resource layer that it > had done so. Not a big deal - we've properly allocated the resource > region, so there's no overlap, there's just this strange disconnect > between what the hardware thinks and what the resource handling things. > > Anyway, it all looks reasonable. Of course, exactly like with the hpt > driver, there doesn't seem to be any real _reason_ to enable the ROM in > the first place, and that code is #ifdef __i386__ anyway (so if there > _was_ a reason, it wouldn't work on anything else than an x86), so I > suspect we should just remove the ROM enable entirely. > > But it really shouldn't matter - at least we now enable the ROM > _correctly_, and I'm pretty sure (and certainly sincerely hope ;) that > your lockup is gone. > > Linus > Hi, system is stable again (I'm way beyond the point where I got lockups before). Thanks a bunch for the quick fix! I'd recommend to include this patch in 2.6.13.2. Best, Norbert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- References:
- 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- From: Norbert Kiesel <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- From: Norbert Kiesel <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- From: Norbert Kiesel <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.14-rc1: oops during boot
- Next by Date: Re: "Read my lips: no more merges" - aka Linux 2.6.14-rc1
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.13.1 locks machine after some time, 2.6.12.5 work fine
- Index(es):