From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756130AbYG2JS5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:18:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750838AbYG2JSs (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:18:48 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59888 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561AbYG2JSr (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:18:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:18:21 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Samuel Sieb Cc: Juergen Beisert , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael C. de Almeida" , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Magnus Damm , takada Subject: Re: kernel won't boot on a Cyrix MediaGXm (Geode ) Message-ID: <20080729091821.GA20262@elte.hu> References: <48841A92.4020301@sieb.net> <48856BC6.7030308@sieb.net> <20080722102457.GA773@elte.hu> <200807221251.10843.jbe@pengutronix.de> <4886DB31.8070306@sieb.net> <20080728153224.GA28495@elte.hu> <488E08C4.20809@sieb.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <488E08C4.20809@sieb.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Samuel Sieb wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Samuel Sieb wrote: >> >>>> The only critical tweak I found is the one that changes the >>>> "Performance Control Incrementer" because its settings depends on >>>> the CPU's core frequency. Maybe this tweak should be removed, >>>> because the BIOS (hopefully) set it in a way the hardware supports. >>> This was the only line that was a problem. See the other branch of >>> this thread with Juergen Beisert. >> >> any patch we should pick up to make your box boot? > > Are you suggesting I should make the patch or you're just asking which > lines? What I did to make a kernel that boots was to comment out the > line that calls the incrementor setup function. It sounds like the > stepping 2 version doesn't have the problem, so if possible could you > call the function based on it not being a stepping 1 CPU? yes, please send a patch we can apply. You did all the hard work tracking down this bug, you should get the credit as well :) Ingo