Subject: Re: Boot netbsd 2.0 on RiscPC
To: Peter Teichmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Brownlee <abs@NetBSD.org>
Date: 03/26/2005 01:13:04
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1; FORMAT=flowed
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Peter Teichmann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 24. M=E4rz 2005 00:01 schrieb Neil Walker:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Peter Teichmann wrote:
>>> * manually execute boot32, in many variants, including from the
>>> supervisor prompt by pressing * while starting the computer, from a !Za=
>>> taskwindow, ...
>> On my StrongARM RiscPC, I ended up reverting to the old bootloader
>> (BtNetBSD), rather than boot32.
>> The changes to the !Run file were pretty minimal, but drop me an email i=
>> you want more info.
>>> Acorn RiscPC 600
>>> Strongarm rev.K
>>> 64MB RAM (2 SIMMs)
>>> 2MB VRAM
>>> RISC OS 4.02
>> I'm running RISC OS 3.70, but otherwise my machine configuration is pret=
>> Hope this is of help.
> Yes! That was really of help. It works without any problems. Thank you ve=
> much! (But I would really like to know what is wrong with boot32... Is th=
> anyone for who it works? And what is the difference of those machines?)
=09I'm using the 2.0 !BtNetBSD (+boot32) to boot on a 32MB
=09Arm 710 Risc PC with RISC OS 3.60. Running InstKern works
=09both inside the sparkive and outside. It also works with
=09shift held down on machine boot to avoid running the RISC
=09OS boot sequence (mode set manually to 28).
=09So to clarify - both the 2.0 !BtNetBSD using boot32, and
=09direct use of the 2.0 boot32 fail for you, but work with
=09an earlier BtNetBSD?
> Anyway, i tried it with several combinations of the following 6 SIMMs:
> SIMM A,B: 32MB, with 2 banks 16MB each (the original ones)
> SIMM C,D: 32MB, with 2 banks 16MB each (different type)
> SIMM E,F: 64MB, with 1 bank of 64MB
> Needless to say, all SIMMS were stable in the machines they were in
> originally. BtNetBSD was able to boot with any combinations of them.
> Boot32 was only able to boot with SIMM C or D in any of the slots, but no=
> with both of them. It failed with any other combinations I tried.
> How can we explain this?
=09That is very strange. Could you look at the messages boot32
=09gives (load an invalid kernel - README works quite well :)
=09and see if they are any different between one of C/D and
=09one of A/B?
=09=09David/absolute -- www.NetBSD.org: No hype required --