From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dvmwest.gt.owl.de (dvmwest.gt.owl.de [62.52.24.140]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DB74829 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:42:36 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:42:35 +0100 From: Jan-Benedict Glaw To: parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Watchdog on parisc? Message-ID: <20030216094234.GG351@lug-owl.de> References: <20030214181124.GJ13355@lug-owl.de> <20030216083110.GC18888@dsl2.external.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f5QefDQHtn8hx44O" In-Reply-To: <20030216083110.GC18888@dsl2.external.hp.com> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --f5QefDQHtn8hx44O Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2003-02-16 01:31:10 -0700, Grant Grundler wrote in message <20030216083110.GC18888@dsl2.external.hp.com>: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:11:24PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > Hi! > >=20 > > I'm currently playing a bit with my B132L and 715. They're working quite > > nice, except that kernels aren't too stable (gcc-3.2, I'll do some more > > test compiles with gcc-3.0, too). >=20 > gcc-3.2.1 has a few bugs that have bitten us already (search mail > archive on "pty.c"). I'm not sure if it's better to stick with > gcc 3.0 or grab something that's bleeding edge (gcc 3.3.x). Yeah, I know. I followed that thread. gcc-3.0 seems to produce a more stable kernel, but even there are some gotchas (eg. strace'ing programs often leads to stuck userland while I still can ping the box or complete the three-way-handshake of a starting TCP connection...). I'd possibly spend some time in invensting this... > > I've looked through the docs available if a watchdog is mentioned. In > > ./docs/platforms/b1xx-service.pdf there's a watchdog timeout error > > declared (during selftest) so I *think* there is a watchdog, isn't > > there? >=20 > I'm not sure what this is refering to. The CPU has some HW checking > that is a sort of watchdog but it's CPU internal and only the firmware > touches those. So there's nothing what's like a watchdog as you know it from some machines (SGI Indys for example) or as add-on cards in machines (PCI/ISA cards). > > I've not yet seen a driver for it, nor have I seen any > > documentation. Is there a watchdog (and possibly some docu or an hpux > > vmunix to disassemble) so I could possibly write something better than > > softdog.c? >=20 > not if it's what I'm thinking of (transaction timeout, ie causes an > HPMC). This is a built-in HW feature.=20 Hmmm... Triggering a HPMC would be a neat feature. So we could think about a way to initiate something that, if not handled, would trigger a HPMC some 60 seconds later:-? MfG, JBG --=20 Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier B=FCrger" | im Internet! Shell Script APT-Proxy: http://lug-owl.de/~jbglaw/software/ap2/ --f5QefDQHtn8hx44O Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+T10KHb1edYOZ4bsRAuBOAJ94z7p8+gT4KNrOeN+r89dxn041/ACfTLvP 5HQTKcfv2qc1SR8SCUvkiGM= =U+5l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --f5QefDQHtn8hx44O--