From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ig3Qz-0005lE-DI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:11:01 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ig3Qy-0005kp-Vo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:11:01 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ig3Qy-0005kh-Jd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:11:00 -0400 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.179]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig3Qy-0004rC-BO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:11:00 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c29so1113110ika for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:10:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-system-m68k and booting m68k images Message-ID: <20071011191052.GA5306@sys-0.hiltweb.site> References: <20071007015902.GA29164@sys-0.hiltweb.site> <200710101820.58501.rob@landley.net> <20071011032041.GA32245@sys-0.hiltweb.site> <200710110215.25947.rob@landley.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200710110215.25947.rob@landley.net> From: ian.hilt@gmail.com (Ian Graeme Hilt) Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Rob Landley Cc: QEmu Developers Mailing List On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 02:15:25AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On Wednesday 10 October 2007 10:20:41 pm Ian Graeme Hilt wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 06:20:57PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > > > On Saturday 06 October 2007 8:59:02 pm Ian Graeme Hilt wrote: > > > > Two questions: > > > > > > > > 1. Why does qemu-system-m68k require a kernel image? > > > > > > I'd actually be pretty happy if I could figure out which kernel image I > > > could build that the sucker would boot. > > > > Have you tried > > > > > > Er, yes. "coldfire". Not m68k. Says so right on the tin. Ok. In my case, the target's processor is a MC68030 with a VME bus. It was built by Microware back in the late 80s to early 90s and has OSK (OS-9 for a MC680x0) installed. > Back in July, Andreas Schwab posted a patch to > upgrade the coldfire support to full m68k support > (or at least the instructions output by gcc): > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2007-07/msg00015.html > > I thought it would have been merged by now (or that there would > at least be some kind of follow up on it), but apparently not. I've tried building QEmu current with gcc-3.4.6 and this patch applied. qemu-system-m68k hung when attempting to boot the kernel image in coldfire-test-0.1.tar.bz2. [...] > If there's a way to build a coldfire toolchain from the gcc 4.1.2 > release, Google isn't finding it. gcc 4.1.2 was released Febuary > 13, 2007, and the gcc developers announced the integration of > coldfire support on March 9, 2007 so maybe it's in 4.2... I think the Linux kernel supports a MC68030 and the VME option. Even if gcc was capable of creating a kernel image for this specific arch, I don't think this would help me(?) since I want to boot the OSK OS floppy and harddrive images. I've used OS9Exec from sourceforge to boot these images and it works rather well. A problem with it is when an OS9 command tries to access hardware a bus error is generated. The reason I was inquiring about the rationale behind the kernel image is that I was going to try writing code to boot the floppy images I have with QEmu. Unfortunately I have very little programming experience, so any information is helpful. -- Ian Graeme Hilt