On 25.02.2016 21:01, Alex Winbow wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Bob Tracy wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 08:27:42PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:23:44PM -0500, Alex Winbow wrote: >>>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Helge Deller wrote: >>>>> On 20.02.2016 08:41, Michael Cree wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:09:49AM -0500, Alex Winbow wrote: >>>>>>> I'm unable to boot kernel 4.2 or 4.4 on SX164. aboot loads the >>>>>>> kernel >>>>>>> and the initrd successfully, then returns to the SRM prompt -- no >>>>>>> error messages. (I'm using kernel 3.16 at present.) >>>>>>> Are there any known issues with Linux 4.x over 3.x on alpha, or on >>>>>>> SX164/EB164 in particular? >>>>>> Yes, I have seen the same thing with the Debian 4.3 generic kernel. >>>>>> But a self-built 4.3 kernel boots fine. >>>> I'm glad to hear that self-built kernels do boot for both of y'all, so >>>> there must be something in the kernel config that relates to the very early >>>> kernel startup that is different for the generic Debian config vs. your own >>>> configs. Any ideas what that might be? I guess I'll start by setting >>>> machinetype from generic to SX164 and rebuilding. >>> Yes, that is worth trying. I had built kernels for dp264 and titan >>> and they are working. > > Success with kernel 4.4.2, built entirely using the Debian package > configuration options with only two changes: machinetype set from > generic to SX164, and CONFIG_ALPHA_SRM=y.
Great. > Obviously I'm thinking that CONFIG_ALPHA_SRM may be highly > significant here! But this is just /too/ obvious, to the point of > rediculousness. Did older Debian kernels have this option =y? No. My last change was in March 2015: https://alioth.debian.org/scm/browser.php?group_id=30428 > Is not having this option known to cause SRM to fail? Did this option become > required at some point? Either that or the debian kernel autoconfig suddenly doesn't enabled it. > The other question is, can we set this option in the default Debian > config for the auto-built packages? Yes, I can submit it if it's needed. Could you maybe try to build & boot a kernel where you keep machinetype at generic ? That way we know if it's sufficient to just change CONFIG_ALPHA_SRM. Helge > I would imagine that most (all?) > users of Debian-alpha are running SRM and not AlphaBIOS at this > point. >>>> Possibly related: >>>> Are you both using aboot 0.9b? I found the following post on LKML: >>> ii aboot 1.0~pre20040408-4 alpha Linux bootloader for the SRM console >> I'd definitely try the newer "aboot" version, but you report making it past >> the kernel+initrd load successfully. Back in 2007 when the rest of the >> Alpha community was having boot problems, we saw "unzip: invalid exec >> header" with an earlier message from "aboot" having the template >> aboot: Can't load kernel. >> Memory at %lx - %lx (chunk %i) is %s > > Curiously, I found I'm actually running aboot 0.9b, and it works with the > kernel 4.4.2 build above (as well as Debian's build of 3.16). I have > 1.0~pre20040408-4 installed, but didn't know about the need to update > swriteboot. > >> For what it's worth, I've been running self-built kernels from the official >> kernel.org source tree since I first installed Debian on my Alpha way back >> when. My machine is no speed-demon either: builds are an overnight >> proposition, but they aren't anywhere near the 30 hours you're reporting :-(. > Long ago I used to run self-built kernels, straight from the kernel.org > tree, but the Debian packages became so much more convenient. (Anyone looking > to sell 21264DP-class hardware?) > > Thanks, > -Alex >
