purdyd tds.net wrote:

> Problem: This kernel package, when installed on many Kirkwood machines,
> including the Dockstar, does not boot.

Thanks. Am I correct in guessing that version
3.2~rc4-1~experimental.1 from http://snapshot.debian.org/ does not
reproduce the problem, while 3.2~rc7-1~experimental.1 does?

Curious,
Jonathan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120206051859.GB5807@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120206051859.GB5807@burratino

purdyd tds.net wrote:

> Thnx for the response... I'm game to try both of those versions
> linux-image-kirkwood-3.2.0-rc[4,7], but I've been unable to actually find
> the binaries in snapshot.debian.org.

Oh, you're right.

After a little more investigation, the grounds for my guess were wrong
anyway. I guess I would want to know instead:

- where can I read a little about the many users experiencing this?
(e.g., was there a mailing list discussion?) That might help in
pinning down relevant variables.

- what is the newest version you know of that worked? One can use
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=linux-2.6&arch=armel to
find which versions actually got built on arm, or something like

fakeroot debian/rules source
fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch_armel_none_kirkwood

to build a version if you have the source installed.

Sorry for the confusion,
Jonathan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120206153403.GB9638@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120206153403.GB9638@burratino

Jonathan,

The pointer towards
*https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=linux-2.6&ver=3.2~rc4-1~experimental.1&arch=armel

is a good one.* I read it and the build died because of a problem in arch/arm/include/asm/bug.h* - quite a few of us have known about this problem, but it has been taken care of in 3.3, IIRC.** It is my guess that the 3.2~rc7 prolly died for the same reason.* This particular error, though, I believe is a red herring.



I answered your queries below, inline.



On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:



Oh, you're right.



After a little more investigation, the grounds for my guess were wrong

anyway. *I guess I would want to know instead:



*- where can I read a little about the many users experiencing this?

* (e.g., was there a mailing list discussion?) *That might help in

* pinning down relevant variables.

Well, here are three different discussions:


1.* debian users @ doozan/dockstar/debian* forum

http://forum.doozan.com/read.php?2,6550,6550#msg-6550

**note: the thread title is __misleading__ ... 3.1.x is working fine, only 3.2 & greater are showing this compression problem




2.* http://archlinuxarm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2314&sid=5bdde26688b00721aaac a66b564cd2a8

(there is an issue mentioned here regarding kmod and udev, but that, I believe is unrelated to the noboot/compressedkernel problem)


3.** http://www.plugcomputer.org/plugforum/index.php?topic=6029.0


*


*- what is the newest version you know of that worked? *One can use

* https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=linux-2.6&arch=armel to

* find which versions actually got built on arm, or something like

3.1.10 works perfectly for me.** 3.2 and beyond all seem to suffer from
the same problem w/ a stall/hang, as is shown in my serial output.** Again, we cannot boot the uImage from either your official package 3.2.2 that is in Sid, nor can we boot a uImage that we natively or w/ a toolchain.** Same symptoms for all.* OTOH, an uncompressed vmlinux.bin* (from objcopy) does when substituted for the uImage file.



*


* * * *fakeroot debian/rules source

* * * *fakeroot make -f debian/rules.gen binary-arch_armel_none_kirkwood



to build a version if you have the source installed.



Sorry for the confusion,

Jonathan

forwarded 658759 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42680
quit

purdyd tds.net wrote:

> Well, here are three different discussions:

Plus <https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42680>. ;-)

I don't think the upstream developers monitor bugzilla, but at
least it's one place instead of lots of separate distro-specific
forums. Let's continue this there.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120206170323.GD9638@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120206170323.GD9638@burratino

Ian Campbell wrote:

> I suspect this is due to the lack of this u-boot patch:
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-February/117020.html
>
> I found that without this my 3.2 dreamplug kernel would not boot (with
> the 2011.12-2 package from debian). It's related to
> CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT.

For the record, this proposed u-boot change has been filed as
<http://bugs.debian.org/658904>.

The inability to work with versions of u-boot without that change
(workaround?) in the default configuration still would seem to be a
regression in the kernel, so pointers toward solving it would be very
welcome.

Thanks very much for tracking this down,
Jonathan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120206174201.GF9638@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120206174201.GF9638@burratino