On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:51:43 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Mikael, can you try this patch (rev 3) on your 486?
It works fine.
/Mikael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So I'd suggest having both jumps back-to-back, but realistically, the
> first regular short jump is actually the one that is more important.
> That's the one that really matters on i386/i486 class machines, and later
> CPU's will generally do the
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Joy. Apparently the Intel documentation is actually self-inconsistent.
> Section 9.9.1, page 9-17 does indeed have the "far jump or call" injunction,
> whereas the sample code in section 9.10.1, page 9-27, line 180 does a near
> jump!
See the
Mikael, can you try this patch (rev 3) on your 486?
-hpa
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S b/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
index 2e55923..d93a0c2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
@@ -28,17 +28,21 @@
* void protected_mode_jump(u32 entrypoint, u32 bootparams);
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
section "switching to protected mode" specifies that
a move to %cr0 that sets PE should immediately be
followed by a far jmp or call.
Yes, that's what the spec says. I queried this a few months ago, but
hpa used
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Yes, that's what the spec says. I queried this a few months ago, but
hpa used his convincing voice and said that in practice it isn't
necessary; there are no known cpus which need this, and any that do
would cause other things to break. But I guess now we have the
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:41:58 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>>
>>> First patch didn't build. Second patch builds and boots Ok.
>>>
>>> So this means the 486 DX4 has a buggy mov to %cr0?
>>>
>>>
>> Apparently.
>>
>
> Maybe
Mikael Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
> section "switching to protected mode" specifies that
> a move to %cr0 that sets PE should immediately be
> followed by a far jmp or call. They write that "random
> failures can occur if other
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
section "switching to protected mode" specifies that
a move to %cr0 that sets PE should immediately be
followed by a far jmp or call. They write that "random
failures can occur if other instructions exist between
[the
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:41:58 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> >
> > First patch didn't build. Second patch builds and boots Ok.
> >
> > So this means the 486 DX4 has a buggy mov to %cr0?
> >
>
> Apparently.
Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
section
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
First patch didn't build. Second patch builds and boots Ok.
So this means the 486 DX4 has a buggy mov to %cr0?
Apparently.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:29:34 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Could you send me your /proc/cpuinfo?
Sure. It's a 100Mhz Intel 486 DX4:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 4
model : 8
model name : 486 DX/4
stepping: 0
cache size : 0 KB
Urk, -ENOTAWAKEYET. Try *THIS* patch, please.
-hpa
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S b/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
index 2e55923..17e6dec 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
@@ -28,27 +28,37 @@
* void protected_mode_jump(u32 entrypoint, u32 bootparams);
*/
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
The machine in question is a ca 1993 vintage Siemens 486 with
a Quadtel S3 / Phoenix BIOS from 1994, booting via grub-0.95-13
from Fedora Core 4.
Signed-off-by: Mikael Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_32.S |5 +
1 files changed,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:05:58 +0100 (MET), Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>My old 486 fails to boot with the 2.6.24-rc1 kernel.
>Grub loads it, 4 lines of text appear but not the kernel's
>"Linux version greet", and the machine reboots.
>Double-checked with a serial console: nothing appears
>before it
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:05:58 +0100 (MET), Mikael Pettersson wrote:
My old 486 fails to boot with the 2.6.24-rc1 kernel.
Grub loads it, 4 lines of text appear but not the kernel's
Linux version blah greet, and the machine reboots.
Double-checked with a serial console: nothing appears
before it
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
The machine in question is a ca 1993 vintage Siemens 486 with
a Quadtel S3 / Phoenix BIOS from 1994, booting via grub-0.95-13
from Fedora Core 4.
Signed-off-by: Mikael Pettersson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_32.S |5 +
1 files changed, 5
Urk, -ENOTAWAKEYET. Try *THIS* patch, please.
-hpa
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S b/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
index 2e55923..17e6dec 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
@@ -28,27 +28,37 @@
* void protected_mode_jump(u32 entrypoint, u32 bootparams);
*/
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:29:34 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Could you send me your /proc/cpuinfo?
Sure. It's a 100Mhz Intel 486 DX4:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 4
model : 8
model name : 486 DX/4
stepping: 0
cache size : 0 KB
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
First patch didn't build. Second patch builds and boots Ok.
So this means the 486 DX4 has a buggy mov to %cr0?
Apparently.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:41:58 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
First patch didn't build. Second patch builds and boots Ok.
So this means the 486 DX4 has a buggy mov to %cr0?
Apparently.
Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
section switching to
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
section switching to protected mode specifies that
a move to %cr0 that sets PE should immediately be
followed by a far jmp or call. They write that random
failures can occur if other instructions exist between
[the
Mikael Pettersson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
section switching to protected mode specifies that
a move to %cr0 that sets PE should immediately be
followed by a far jmp or call. They write that random
failures can occur if other instructions
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:41:58 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Mikael Pettersson wrote:
First patch didn't build. Second patch builds and boots Ok.
So this means the 486 DX4 has a buggy mov to %cr0?
Apparently.
Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Yes, that's what the spec says. I queried this a few months ago, but
hpa used his convincing voice and said that in practice it isn't
necessary; there are no known cpus which need this, and any that do
would cause other things to break. But I guess now we have the
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Maybe not. I had a look in Intel's SDM Vol3, and the
section switching to protected mode specifies that
a move to %cr0 that sets PE should immediately be
followed by a far jmp or call.
Yes, that's what the spec says. I queried this a few months ago, but
hpa used his
Mikael, can you try this patch (rev 3) on your 486?
-hpa
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S b/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
index 2e55923..d93a0c2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/pmjump.S
@@ -28,17 +28,21 @@
* void protected_mode_jump(u32 entrypoint, u32 bootparams);
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Joy. Apparently the Intel documentation is actually self-inconsistent.
Section 9.9.1, page 9-17 does indeed have the far jump or call injunction,
whereas the sample code in section 9.10.1, page 9-27, line 180 does a near
jump!
See the older code.
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So I'd suggest having both jumps back-to-back, but realistically, the
first regular short jump is actually the one that is more important.
That's the one that really matters on i386/i486 class machines, and later
CPU's will generally do the
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:51:43 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Mikael, can you try this patch (rev 3) on your 486?
It works fine.
/Mikael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
30 matches
Mail list logo
