Subject says all! :-)
2.6.0-test3-mm2 still works (as does 2.4.21-rc2).
vanilla 2.6.0-test4 & test4-mm[45] & the onboard ethernet doesn't seem to work.
No kernel panics, it just doesn't work :-(
Both have same ethernet driver:
via-rhine.c:v1.10-LK1.1.19-2.5 July-12-2003 Written by Donald Becker
http://www.scyld.com/network/via-rhine.html
eth0: VIA VT6102 Rhine-II at 0xe800, 00:40:63:ca:6a:c1, IRQ 10.
eth0: MII PHY found at address 1, status 0x786d advertising 05e1 Link 45e1.
eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #1 link partner capability of 45e1.
Even manual config (normal is dhcp) doesn't work.
Haven't seen anyone else report this, but this is repeatable and i suspect
more people must have experienced this ?!
Machine is running debian-unstable distro.
Danny
--
I think so Brain, but why does a forklift
have to be so big if all it does is lift forks?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 07:11:40 +0000, Danny ter Haar wrote:
> Subject says all! :-)
>
> 2.6.0-test3-mm2 still works (as does 2.4.21-rc2).
>
> vanilla 2.6.0-test4 & test4-mm[45] & the onboard ethernet doesn't seem to work.
> No kernel panics, it just doesn't work :-(
Try a kernel without ACPI and/or APIC support.
Roger
Roger Luethi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> vanilla 2.6.0-test4 & test4-mm[45] & the onboard ethernet doesn't seem to work.
>Try a kernel without ACPI and/or APIC support.
Yup, adding acpi=off "fixed" the problem.
Will wait for "better" times ! ;-)
Zanks!
Danny
--
I think so Brain, but why does a forklift
have to be so big if all it does is lift forks?
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 07:11:40AM +0000, Danny ter Haar wrote:
> vanilla 2.6.0-test4 & test4-mm[45] & the onboard ethernet doesn't seem to work.
> No kernel panics, it just doesn't work :-(
It's standard APIC bug that no one care!
> Both have same ethernet driver:
>
> via-rhine.c:v1.10-LK1.1.19-2.5 July-12-2003 Written by Donald Becker
> http://www.scyld.com/network/via-rhine.html
> eth0: VIA VT6102 Rhine-II at 0xe800, 00:40:63:ca:6a:c1, IRQ 10.
> eth0: MII PHY found at address 1, status 0x786d advertising 05e1 Link 45e1.
> eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #1 link partner capability of 45e1.
I have via_kt-400 on ecs_l7vta, just check my previous post:
#Message-ID: <[email protected]>
#Subject: [BUG] - 2.{4,6}.{22,0-test4} - CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC lack routing on eth
> Even manual config (normal is dhcp) doesn't work.
Same to me.
> Haven't seen anyone else report this, but this is repeatable and i suspect
> more people must have experienced this ?!
I report this bug probably 4 times! And it was since early 2.4.20, then APIC
changes, so I can use if.
> Machine is running debian-unstable distro.
Slackware GNU/Linux (current).
P.S. I you wont to use eth with that kernel, silmpe uncompile
CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC and use APM.
PP.S. Maby you have ATI card? Bug with setfonts and loadkeys on 1 tty it's
from time to time :-)
--
# Damian *dEiMoS* Ko?kowski # http://deimos.one.pl/ #
Damian Kolkowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>It's standard APIC bug that no one care!
That's a pitty, perhaps none of the developers has (serial-)access to one
of such machines and thus noway of checking/fixing?
>I have via_kt-400 on ecs_l7vta, just check my previous post:
>#Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>#Subject: [BUG] - 2.{4,6}.{22,0-test4} - CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC lack routing on eth
some kernel do work with my hardware. which makes it even stranger!
>P.S. I you wont to use eth with that kernel, silmpe uncompile
>CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC and use APM.
ok, will do that for now.
>PP.S. Maby you have ATI card? Bug with setfonts and loadkeys on 1 tty it's
>from time to time :-)
nope, mini-itx has everything on board. I intend to use mine as a firewall
with dot1Q vlan capabilities. text-only! ;-)
Danny
--
I think so Brain, but why does a forklift
have to be so big if all it does is lift forks?
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 08:02:18AM +0000, Danny ter Haar wrote:
> That's a pitty, perhaps none of the developers has (serial-)access to one
> of such machines and thus noway of checking/fixing?
Yep, right, perhaps they has not.
> some kernel do work with my hardware. which makes it even stranger!
I use 2.4.22-rc2 (APIC works fine with via-rhine), so I patch -ac3 on that
kernel too.
--
# Damian *dEiMoS* Ko?kowski # http://deimos.one.pl/ #
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 09:49, Damian Kolkowski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 07:11:40AM +0000, Danny ter Haar wrote:
> > vanilla 2.6.0-test4 & test4-mm[45] & the onboard ethernet doesn't seem to work.
> > No kernel panics, it just doesn't work :-(
>
> It's standard APIC bug that no one care!
if you enable APIC (and not ACPI) then you start using a different BIOS
table for IRQ routing. Several BIOSes have bugs in this table since it's
not a table that is generally used by Windows on UP boxes. Saying that
it's the kernel's fault is rather unfair; most (if not all) distros for
example ship with APIC disabled for this reason. It's nice if it works
for you but there's quite a few boxes out there that just can't work....
Don't configure it if you have such a box.
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > It's standard APIC bug that no one care!
> if you enable APIC (and not ACPI) then you start using a different BIOS
> table for IRQ routing. Several BIOSes have bugs in this table since it's
> not a table that is generally used by Windows on UP boxes. Saying that
> it's the kernel's fault is rather unfair; most (if not all) distros for
> example ship with APIC disabled for this reason.
Maby you have right...
> It's nice if it works for you but there's quite a few boxes out there that
> just can't work.... Don't configure it if you have such a box.
Do not be anger Arjan, but it[1] works from time to time, so it is permanently
kernel/APIC bug.
Take care.
[1] - via-rhine (eth routing).
--
# Damian *dEiMoS* Ko?kowski # http://deimos.one.pl/ #
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:13:39 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> if you enable APIC (and not ACPI) then you start using a different BIOS
> table for IRQ routing. Several BIOSes have bugs in this table since it's
> not a table that is generally used by Windows on UP boxes. Saying that
> it's the kernel's fault is rather unfair; most (if not all) distros for
What I've been seeing lately is people complaining it used to work with
previous kernels but later ones don't. One possible explanation would be
that VIA chip sets (explicitly or through one of their specific properties)
used to be blacklisted before (and thus APIC silently disabled).
The reports I get indicate that _something_ in the kernel changed. I
suspect it's the ACPI code (best viewed with Intel chipsets), but that's
speculation.
Roger
Damian Kolkowski writes:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 07:11:40AM +0000, Danny ter Haar wrote:
> > vanilla 2.6.0-test4 & test4-mm[45] & the onboard ethernet doesn't seem to work.
> > No kernel panics, it just doesn't work :-(
>
> It's standard APIC bug that no one care!
It's impossible to have an APIC bug on a C3 board, because the processor
simply doesn't have one!
Another respondent today said that disabling ACPI (note ACPI != APIC)
solved his problems.
> > Haven't seen anyone else report this, but this is repeatable and i suspect
> > more people must have experienced this ?!
>
> I report this bug probably 4 times! And it was since early 2.4.20, then APIC
> changes, so I can use if.
I saw your previous report. It was basically information-free and impossible
to base any problem analysis on. If you want your bug reports to have a
chance of being acted upon, follow the documented bug reporting procedure.
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:30:22 +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> I saw your previous report. It was basically information-free and impossible
> to base any problem analysis on. If you want your bug reports to have a
> chance of being acted upon, follow the documented bug reporting procedure.
Most users are more than happy to provide additional information when asked
for it. In my personal experience, the documented bug reporting procdure is
a time consuming way of producing lots of information, most of which is
irrelevant to the case in question, and which is usually lacking the
information _I_ am looking for. For me, it tends to be less work to ask the
user for the specific details than to sift through a lengthy standard bug
report looking for it. YMMV, of course.
Roger
Hi all,
> Roger Luethi wrote:
>> vanilla 2.6.0-test4 & test4-mm[45] & the onboard ethernet doesn't seem to
>> work.
> Try a kernel without ACPI and/or APIC support.
> Yup, adding acpi=off "fixed" the problem.
> Will wait for "better" times ! ;-)
Some days ago a patch for 2.6 has been posted on bugzilla, (see some of the
last entries of Bug #10).
This one got IO-APIC + ACPI working for the first time in a year on my EPOX
8k5a3+.
(via-rhine, usb , sound )
Please try !
Christian
P.S. there's also a patch for 2.4 (search for "Fixing USB interrupts problems"
in the subject)
Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
>if you enable APIC (and not ACPI) then you start using a different BIOS
>table for IRQ routing. Several BIOSes have bugs in this table since it's
>not a table that is generally used by Windows on UP boxes. Saying that
>it's the kernel's fault is rather unfair; most (if not all) distros for
>example ship with APIC disabled for this reason. It's nice if it works
>for you but there's quite a few boxes out there that just can't work....
>Don't configure it if you have such a box.
I tried 2.6.0-test4-mm2 on other C3 (bought several units including for in my car ;) and that one simply froze after detecting the partiton table of the ide harddisk. adding acpi=off even made then one move again.
When confuses me if that it works with prior kernels and suddenly fails
with later/greater kernels.
Ah well, it's now better known and probably some clever individual will
eventually figure it out and post a patch ! ;-)
Danny
--
I think so Brain, but why does a forklift
have to be so big if all it does is lift forks?
Mikael Pettersson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Another respondent today said that disabling ACPI (note ACPI != APIC)
>solved his problems.
Yep, 2 different C3's, one with IDE freezes and one with network probs
suddenly work fine.
Ain't life beautifull ?
Danny
--
I think so Brain, but why does a forklift
have to be so big if all it does is lift forks?
Roger Luethi <[email protected]> wrote:
>What I've been seeing lately is people complaining it used to work with
>previous kernels but later ones don't.
Exactly. I installed from CD with 2.4.18-something and that seemed to work.
It's sort of natural that your upgrade to a newer kernel and since 2.6.0
is to be declared "stable" i thought it would be best if it's known that
there are still problems.
Danny
--
I think so Brain, but why does a forklift
have to be so big if all it does is lift forks?
Dnia ?ro 3. wrze?nia 2003 11:46, Christian Guggenberger napisa?:
> This one got IO-APIC + ACPI working for the first time in a year on my EPOX
> 8k5a3+.
Wolk 4.8s + NEWIDE is working fine APIC, IO-APIC and ACPI too on my
via_kt-400.
--
# Damian *dEiMoS* Ko?kowski # http://deimos.one.pl/ #
On Mer, 2003-09-03 at 10:30, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> It's impossible to have an APIC bug on a C3 board, because the processor
> simply doesn't have one!
The chipset does and not writing PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE and other things
properly can cause problems if its directing interrupts to the chipset
I/O APIC wrongly not the PIC and thus the CPU
Christian Guggenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
>Some days ago a patch for 2.6 has been posted on bugzilla, (see some of the
>last entries of Bug #10).
>This one got IO-APIC + ACPI working for the first time in a year on my EPOX
>8k5a3+.
>(via-rhine, usb , sound )
>Please try !
You mean this one? (so small, probably no-one minds)
diff -uNr linux-2.6.0-test4-bk2.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c linux-2.6.0-test4-bk2/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
--- linux-2.6.0-test4-bk2.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c 2003-08-23 01:52:08.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.0-test4-bk2/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c 2003-08-30 10:05:20.514059029 +0200
@@ -360,6 +360,8 @@
return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
}
+
+#ifdef DONT_REMOVE_CHECK
/* Make sure the active IRQ is the one we requested. */
result = acpi_pci_link_get_current(link);
if (result) {
@@ -375,6 +377,10 @@
return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
}
+#else
+ link->irq.active = irq;
+#endif
+
ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Set IRQ %d\n", link->irq.active));
return_VALUE(0);
------------
Danny
--
I think so Brain, but why does a forklift
have to be so big if all it does is lift forks?
Alan Cox writes:
> On Mer, 2003-09-03 at 10:30, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > It's impossible to have an APIC bug on a C3 board, because the processor
> > simply doesn't have one!
>
> The chipset does and not writing PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE and other things
> properly can cause problems if its directing interrupts to the chipset
> I/O APIC wrongly not the PIC and thus the CPU
You mean PCI initialisation (and thus ACPI) can break the I/O-APIC
even though the kernel never actually accesses the I/O-APIC per se?
Ok, I see how that could happen.
/Mikael
On Mer, 2003-09-03 at 16:19, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> You mean PCI initialisation (and thus ACPI) can break the I/O-APIC
> even though the kernel never actually accesses the I/O-APIC per se?
> Ok, I see how that could happen.
In paticular onboard VIA stuff uses the upper bits of the
PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE register to do IRQ routing as well as the PIN stuff
that PCI expects
>>Some days ago a patch for 2.6 has been posted on bugzilla, (see some of the
>>last entries of Bug #10).
>>This one got IO-APIC + ACPI working for the first time in a year on my EPOX
>>8k5a3+.
>>(via-rhine, usb , sound )
>>Please try !
>You mean this one? (so small, probably no-one minds)
yep, this one.
please cc me next time, cause I'm not subcribed.
Christian
diff -uNr linux-2.6.0-test4-bk2.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c linux-2.6.0-test4-bk2/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
--- linux-2.6.0-test4-bk2.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c 2003-08-23 01:52:08.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.0-test4-bk2/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c 2003-08-30 10:05:20.514059029 +0200
@@ -360,6 +360,8 @@
return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
}
+
+#ifdef DONT_REMOVE_CHECK
/* Make sure the active IRQ is the one we requested. */
result = acpi_pci_link_get_current(link);
if (result) {
@@ -375,6 +377,10 @@
return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
}
+#else
+ link->irq.active = irq;
+#endif
+
ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Set IRQ %d\n", link->irq.active));
return_VALUE(0);
Christian Guggenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>You mean this one? (so small, probably no-one minds)
>yep, this one.
>please cc me next time, cause I'm not subcribed.
This patch doesn't apply to -mm4/5.
Tried by hand but code is somewhat different.
Will try later because of some obligations.
Danny
--
/"\ | Dying is to be avoided because
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN | it can ruin your whole career
X against HTML MAIL |
/ \ and POSTINGS | - Bob Hope
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
This is also apparent in the 2.4.22 stable kernel .. I wasn't able to get my
via-rhine to work at all either.. Instead of turning off acpi I just put in
a spare 3com card I had lying around.. Still if this is in both the 2.6 and
now the 2.4 kernel 's .. shouldnt someone fix it ?
On Wednesday 03 September 2003 12:11 am, Danny ter Haar wrote:
> Subject says all! :-)
>
> 2.6.0-test3-mm2 still works (as does 2.4.21-rc2).
>
> vanilla 2.6.0-test4 & test4-mm[45] & the onboard ethernet doesn't seem to
> work. No kernel panics, it just doesn't work :-(
>
>
> Both have same ethernet driver:
>
> via-rhine.c:v1.10-LK1.1.19-2.5 July-12-2003 Written by Donald Becker
> http://www.scyld.com/network/via-rhine.html
> eth0: VIA VT6102 Rhine-II at 0xe800, 00:40:63:ca:6a:c1, IRQ 10.
> eth0: MII PHY found at address 1, status 0x786d advertising 05e1 Link 45e1.
> eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #1 link partner capability of 45e1.
>
> Even manual config (normal is dhcp) doesn't work.
>
> Haven't seen anyone else report this, but this is repeatable and i suspect
> more people must have experienced this ?!
>
> Machine is running debian-unstable distro.
>
> Danny
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/VhWeleY/n9G/oZ8RApDNAJwIHkz1zrLERkQ1Y604wcujOYN3HACfbMtW
sHrPFwycxKgo5URgqovSGbI=
=247w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 09:23:55 -0700, Matt Heler wrote:
> This is also apparent in the 2.4.22 stable kernel .. I wasn't able to get my
> via-rhine to work at all either.. Instead of turning off acpi I just put in
> a spare 3com card I had lying around.. Still if this is in both the 2.6 and
> now the 2.4 kernel 's .. shouldnt someone fix it ?
Indeed. And your detailed bug reports (as outlined earlier today by Len
Brown) are going to help with that.
Roger