From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BERTRAND_Jo=EBl?= <mt1@systella.fr>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 09:30:55 +0000
Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc5 does not build for sparc
Message-Id: <44796DCF.1030209@systella.fr>
List-Id: <sparclinux.vger.kernel.org>
References: <4478bffd45960@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <4478bffd45960@wp.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org

Bob Breuer a =E9crit :
> Krzysztof Helt wrote:
>=20
>>Hello,
>>
>>I tried to build the 2.6.17-rc5 for sparc with SMP enabled. The
>>kernel was not build due to a missing macro. Here is a patch
>>which fixes this (I copied the macro from a sparc64 header).
>>
>=20
>=20
> That's not all that is broken.  I think I have what could be 4 separate
> patches for smp here: (combined in the attached patch)
>   1. add topology_init - fixes a boot time crash
>   2. setup cpu_possible_map - actually boot the additional cpu's
>   3. fix smp related section mismatch warnings
>   4. add the missing *_can_lock macros
>=20
> If you are running a local framebuffer, you may encounter a problem with
> vmalloc.  Adding "migration_cost=10000" to the kernel command line
> should cover up the problem.
>=20
> I haven't had the time to give it a thorough testing and see if it
> self-recompiles recently, but I was previously able to successfully
> rebuild the kernel with "make -j6" on a dual SuperSPARC II.

	I have tried your patch too and I only can randomly use a SS20 with two=20
SSI/75 (448 MB). I have tested the last kernel proposed on the=20
debian-sparc mailing list without any trouble but with only one SSII=20
(SMP is broken but I haven't seen any DMA error).

	Question : does somebody use a SS20 with four ROSS ? I have seens a=20
very strange trouble. I have a lot of RT626, SS20 and memory chips. With=20
all configurations I have tested with more than two RT626, Solaris 9=20
returns "watchdog reset". All motherboards have been tested and work=20
fine. Same observations for RT626 and memory. Thus, I don't know if the=20
trouble I have seen with Linux 2.6 and 4*RT626 come from hardware=20
incompatibility or software mistake. Any idea ? Currently, I retest a=20
SS20 with Solaris 9 and 2*RT626 and I have built without any trouble=20
gcc-4.1.0 and gcc-4.1.1.

	Regards,

	JKB