Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 04/22/2018 09:17 PM, Frank Scheiner wrote: Some switches support a half-duplex back pressure form of flow control. I'll try that now. According to the documentation my switch can create back-pressure as form of flow control. Yesterday after I activated flow control on the switch, the

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 2018-04-22 3:17 PM, Frank Scheiner wrote: On 04/21/2018 02:22 AM, John David Anglin wrote:  From the manual, it seems the 10BASE-T port is half duplex (CSMA/CD). The MAU interface is definitely half duplex and the word duplex is not mentioned in the manual. I also didn't find any info

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 04/22/2018 11:06 AM, Helge Deller wrote: On 22.04.2018 00:36, John David Anglin wrote: On 2018-04-21 6:17 PM, Helge Deller wrote: It can be disabled with "cryptomgr.notests" on command line. Did you tested this? Not recently.  I found this when I was working on the cache.TLB patch.  It

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 04/21/2018 02:22 AM, John David Anglin wrote: From the manual, it seems the 10BASE-T port is half duplex (CSMA/CD). The MAU interface is definitely half duplex and the word duplex is not mentioned in the manual. I also didn't find any info about half-/full-duplex in the two manuals I

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 04/20/2018 11:24 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: You could try setting the internal NIC to half-duplex, or perhaps use a (passive) 10BASE-T hub instead of a switch if you cannot configure that internally, on the kernel command line, or doing it in userland is too late. I actually had the port

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 22.04.2018 00:36, John David Anglin wrote: > On 2018-04-21 6:17 PM, Helge Deller wrote: >>> It can be disabled with "cryptomgr.notests" on command line. >> Did you tested this? > Not recently.  I found this when I was working on the cache.TLB patch.  It > caused a stall in one version. >>

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 2018-04-21 6:17 PM, Helge Deller wrote: It can be disabled with "cryptomgr.notests" on command line. Did you tested this? Not recently.  I found this when I was working on the cache.TLB patch.  It caused a stall in one version. Unless I typed it wrong it didn't worked on my B160L: [

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 21.04.2018 21:12, John David Anglin wrote: > On 2018-04-20 2:37 AM, Helge Deller wrote: >>> Also interesting, the kernel messages for 4.15.11, please notice the >>> time difference between "random: crng init done" and "Key type >>> asymmetric registered": >> Seems to be a generic issue. >>

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 2018-04-20 2:37 AM, Helge Deller wrote: Also interesting, the kernel messages for 4.15.11, please notice the time difference between "random: crng init done" and "Key type asymmetric registered": Seems to be a generic issue.

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 2018-04-20 5:24 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: But later this week I retried the 712/80 with the current Linux kernel (4.15.x) and Debian userland and the issue hit me again, although much later and despite the 100 Mbit network switch in between. Looking at it I could see that the collision

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 21:29:45 +0200 Frank Scheiner wrote: > Afterwards I found some older notes about this machine which mention > no issues during diskless operation with the very same configuration > (kernel and possibly also userland), which made me wonder, if there's

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 19.04.2018 21:29, Frank Scheiner wrote: >>> Apart from the rp3440 - and maybe also the 712/80 which showed some issue >>> with it's built-in NIC after netbooting the Linux kernel and the OS >> >> What kind of problems? > > Unfortunately I seem to not have made any notes for the issue with the

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 04/19/2018 11:33 PM, John David Anglin wrote: On 2018-04-19 3:29 PM, Frank Scheiner wrote: Interestingly after upgrading all packages (obviously including palo) on the NFS root FS and building a new lifimage with Linux 4.15.x, blacklisting the radeon module seems to be no longer required.

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 2018-04-19 3:29 PM, Frank Scheiner wrote: Interestingly after upgrading all packages (obviously including palo) on the NFS root FS and building a new lifimage with Linux 4.15.x, blacklisting the radeon module seems to be no longer required. Not sure if this is due to palo 2.00 or Linux

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

Hi, and sorry for the delay, I was a little short of spare time this week. :-/ On 04/15/2018 10:34 AM, Helge Deller wrote: On 14.04.2018 20:13, Frank Scheiner wrote: I know from my own testing that the following "smaller" machines work with Debian GNU/Linux Sid for hppa: * 712/80 * c3700,

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 14.04.2018 20:13, Frank Scheiner wrote: > On 04/14/2018 06:11 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> Really?  Well then .. let me see what I have that is ancient in the >>   warehouse. >> >> How about PA-RISC?  I happen to have some superdomes kicking about but they >> require truely a ton of power to

Re: Ultra5 successful install - PGX64 issues

On 04/14/2018 06:11 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: Really?  Well then .. let me see what I have that is ancient in the  warehouse. How about PA-RISC?  I happen to have some superdomes kicking about but they require truely a ton of power to operate. I assume hppa people in Debian