Subject: sbicnextstate on A3000
To: None <port-amiga@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Brian Moats <bmoats@efn.org>
List: port-amiga
Date: 05/19/1996 13:16:50
I swapped physical positions of swap and nbr and changed their sizes. This
eliminated the:

Warning: inode blocks /cyl group (29) >= data blocks (28) in last
    cylinder group. This implies 448 sector(s) cannot be allocated.

but I still get:

sbicnextstate:xfec count 0 asr80 csr18
sbicnextstate: aborting csr 18 asr 80
absc0: csr == 0x18
absc0: abortnext, csr = 0x18 asr = 0x00
absc0: sbicabort - sending ABORT command
absc0: sbicabort - sending DISC command

sbicwait TIMEO @ 814 with asr=x0 csr x18
   .
   .
   .

I've tried different inst-11.fs and kernel files to no avail. -I ff doesn't
help either.

Any idea what's going on?

Thanks

Brian


>Attempting to install NetBSD on a generic A3000 with internal Quantum (unit 6)
>and 316M HP external (unit 1). The HP is divided into:
>
>dh1:  125.3M
>nbr:   10.7M
>swap:  27.7M
>nbu:  157.3M
>
>Counting blocks, xstreamtodev is correctly placing inst-11.fs onto swap.
>rdbinfo displays all info correctly.
>
>I had 1.0 installed with the same disk configuration, but now after:
>
> loadbsd -b netbsd
>
>Everything goes fine. (Yes, typing sd0*) UNTIL -
>
>
>Are you SURE you want NetBSD installed on your hard drive? (yes/no)
>
>Initializing / (root) filesystem and mounting...
>Warning: inode blocks /cyl group (29) >= data blocks (28) in last
>    cylinder group. This implies 448 sector(s) cannot be allocated.
>/dev/rsd0a: 21504 sectors in 48 cylinders of 8 tracks, 56 sectors.
>
>10.5MB in 3 cyl groups (16 c/g, 3.5MB/g 832 i/g)
>sbicnextstate:xfec count 0 asr80 csr18
>sbicnextstate: aborting csr 18 asr 80
>absc0: csr == 0x18
>absc0: abortnext, csr = 0x18 asr = 0x00
>absc0: sbicabort - sending ABORT command
>absc0: sbicabort - sending DISC command
>
>sbicwait TIMEO @ 814 with asr=x0 csr x18
>      .
>      .
>      .
>
>Drive light stays on, I have to reboot.
>
>Initial display reports:
>
>sd0 at scsibus0: 316MB, 1457 cyl, 8 head, 55 sec, 512 bytes/sec
>
>That's 55 sec, not 56?
>
>Any ideas anyone?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Brian