[Keeping threads to a minimum at the cost of readability, replies to many
follow...]

On 10/10/07 3:33 PM, "Andrew Doran" <ad@netbsd.org> wrote:

>> acpi0: X/RSDT: OemId <COMPAQ,YORKTOWN,00000002>, AslId <  M-R^D,0000162e>
> 
> This looks like a DL580 or similar? I have one and it exhibits the same
> problem.
> 

Yes, this is a circa 2001 Compaq DL5?0.  It's 7U tall, noisy and heavy, but
otherwise quite handy for chugging on code.



On 10/10/07 3:28 PM, "Brian Buhrow" <buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org> wrote:

> Hello.  NetBSD-3 used ACPI subsystem version 20040217, or something
> like that.  NetBSD-4 uses one from 2006.  I wonder if it's possible that
> NetBSD-4 is trying to use features in your BIOS which aren't particularly
> well implemented?  In other words, do you have the latest BIOS on your
> machine?  Many years ago, I used to work on Compaq machines a lot, and it
> was common to run into BIOS bugs with various OS's from time to time.
> Another thing you might look at, assuming you have the latest BIOS
> available for your machine, are your BIOS OS settings.  Is it set to
> "Windows" or "Unixware" or "other?"

I'm pretty sure I selected Solaris back when I selected it.  I can check
this though.

> I'd try booting with this setting on various choices to see what breaks
> differently, or, gasp, in hopes that one of them works.

It's a pretty easy test.  Standing and waiting through the reboots is the
hard part.



On 10/10/07 5:09 PM, "Chris Ross" <cross+netbsd@distal.com> wrote:

>  I have a couple of Compaq i386 machinesd, that have run various
> versions
> of NetBSD.  I've actually found that "Solaris" works best for me for the
> "which type of OS are you running?" for an MP i386 NetBSD.  I'm running
> a NetBSD 4.0_RC2 (unless it's RC1) on a DL1850, so much older than
> what you have, but it seems to be working alright for me.  Does crash
> periodically, but I fear that was because I was brave enough to make
> some lfs filesystems.  :-)

I'm not brave enough to try LFS on it, you win on that count.  <grin>

I had a bugger of a time getting this system to netbsd-4 back in August
(with beta 2) but I thought it might have been because of cd drive and its
compatibility with the speed CD I was using.

To get this system upgraded I had to copy the contents of the CD onto /root
and boot with the INSTALL kernel.  It was a bit of a circus, but with the
BETA_2 kernel it mostly worked.  The CPU speeds would appear goofy but I had
all the CPUs and they all seemed to be at full-speed.

Back on the broader topic, is it fair to try to build a non-ACPI MP kernel
from the netbsd-4 source?  More specifically, am I just missing some other
options in the config if I'm compiling and getting:

cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c: In function 'cpu_init_first':
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c:187: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'lapic_cpu_number'
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c: In function 'cpu_hatch':
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c:602: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'lapic_enable'
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c:603: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'lapic_initclocks'
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c:614: warning: implicit
declaration of function 'lapic_set_lvt'
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c:623: error: 'lapic_tpr'
undeclared (first use in this function)
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c:623: error: (Each undeclared
identifier is reported only once
/builds/netbsd-4/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/cpu.c:623: error: for each function
it appears in.)


I just use:
include "arch/i386/conf/GENERIC.MP"

no acpi0 at mainbus0
no ioapic* at mainbus?


peter