From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33F1DDE30 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:09:18 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.6.22-git hangs during boot on PowerBook G3 in 0.0 seconds From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Kim Phillips In-Reply-To: <20070724185946.722f34b5.kim.phillips@freescale.com> References: <20070721192143.GA12144@nospam.com> <20070721212845.GA30977@nospam.com> <20070723172725.b1c14885.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <1185234923.5439.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070724185946.722f34b5.kim.phillips@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:07:03 +1000 Message-Id: <1185329223.5439.304.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Rutger Nijlunsing List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > for the enumerated PHYs. As the original commit comment states, I was > getting these messages: > > prom_parse: Bad cell count for /qe@e0100000/mdio@2120/ethernet-phy@00 > prom_parse: Bad cell count for /qe@e0100000/mdio@2120/ethernet-phy@01 Well, I would say it's a bug to try to translate addresses accross such a boundary. Thus the PHY enumeration code is bogus. > > I also wonder why it hangs on the powerbook... Rutger, I would expect to > > see that complaint warning with the reverted patch, what does it say ? > > > > My Wallstreet (also based on Grackle) doesn't have the problem. Also can > > you send me a tarball of /proc/device-tree ? > > I don't have any of those machines, but it seems that older kernels > running on the Lombard emitted: > > device-tree: Duplicate name in /cpus/PowerPC,750@0, renamed to "l2-cache#1" That's a different matter. > messages*. Experimenting with adding two chosen nodes (due to a prior > thread on this list**) results in a hung kernel on the 8360 also, so > perhaps they're related (and the kernel's tolerance to duplicate > entries has changed, which explains where I had seen the chosen node > being renamed). > > but yeah, size-cells should be allowed to be 0 (even address-cells) and > it may be the case that the Lombard needs some fixup code. Ben.