From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932286AbWE3OMI (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2006 10:12:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932297AbWE3OMH (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2006 10:12:07 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.58]:15295 "EHLO ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932300AbWE3OMG (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2006 10:12:06 -0400 Subject: RE: Long delay on bootup with wait_hwif_ready From: Steven Rostedt To: David Balazic Cc: LKML , Jeff Garzik , Andi Kleen , Pavel Machek , Matt Domsch In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:11:12 -0400 Message-Id: <1148998272.8104.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 14:10 +0200, David Balazic wrote: > Hi! > > My "final conclusion" last time was, that there is some memory > area, that comes out too short in certain cases. > This is some early kernel boot code, that deals with the BIOS (and > confuses it, it seems, by running out the mentioned memory area). > > As I understood, the kernel could be tweaked to increase/decrease > the problemtatic memory area (or the usage of it). > > It is some kind of stack, heap or segment, I don't know, but somebody > mentioned it last time. > > Regards, > David > > PS: Feel free to ask me for testing patches ;-) > I still have the same PC (with a certain weird behavior lately, > I can't switch the IDE mode from "RAID" to "normal" ...) > After rereading the thread (after my first cup of coffee this time), I see that the problem was slightly different than what I had. The thread showed some delay before the console was initialized (the EDD code). But I'm experiencing the delay with the wait_not_busy. My problem is that the secondary status register is returning busy when there isn't anything there. So I have to wait 35 seconds for the timeout to expire. This could just be a fluke with the way the board is designed (it wouldn't surprise me). -- Steve