status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Kevin B. Hendricks]

Hi,

I have not kept up with 2.4.0 development at all.  I see that Linus has officially released 2.4.0.  Alan has also release 2.4.0-ac1.  What is the status of ppc support in either of these kernels?

Did Linus ever accept the ppc patches people has sent?  Should a stick with the Alan's kernel for now or is there some other place to download a more ppc specific kernel from?

Thanks,

Kevin


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:55:00AM -0500, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:

> I have not kept up with 2.4.0 development at all.  I see that Linus has
> officially released 2.4.0.  Alan has also release 2.4.0-ac1.  What is the
> status of ppc support in either of these kernels?

Don't bother with kernel.org, Alan's tree is better but not fully merged.
2_3 bk is fine, 2_5 bk will be merged up shortly.
http://www.fsmlabs.com/linuxppcbk.html

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Ethan Benson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 932 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 08:37:40AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:55:00AM -0500, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
> 
> > I have not kept up with 2.4.0 development at all.  I see that Linus has
> > officially released 2.4.0.  Alan has also release 2.4.0-ac1.  What is the
> > status of ppc support in either of these kernels?
> 
> Don't bother with kernel.org, Alan's tree is better but not fully merged.
> 2_3 bk is fine, 2_5 bk will be merged up shortly.
> http://www.fsmlabs.com/linuxppcbk.html

it would really be more useful if a unified patch against the 2.4.0 on
kernel.org could be made available somewhere (penguinppc.org) to
create a cleaned up, merged finalized 2.4.0-powerpc without requiring
[ordinary] people to fiddle with the proprietary bk.  

either that or finish merging with alan and tell people to use the -ac
series.  

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Michel Dänzer]

Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 08:37:40AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:55:00AM -0500, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
> >
> > > I have not kept up with 2.4.0 development at all.  I see that Linus has
> > > officially released 2.4.0.  Alan has also release 2.4.0-ac1.  What is
> > > the status of ppc support in either of these kernels?
> >
> > Don't bother with kernel.org, Alan's tree is better but not fully merged.
> > 2_3 bk is fine, 2_5 bk will be merged up shortly.
> > http://www.fsmlabs.com/linuxppcbk.html
>
> it would really be more useful if a unified patch against the 2.4.0 on
> kernel.org could be made available somewhere (penguinppc.org) to
> create a cleaned up, merged finalized 2.4.0-powerpc without requiring
> [ordinary] people to fiddle with the proprietary bk.

I'm running 2.4.0 from linuxppc_2_3 and have never used bk. rsync is rather
cool.


Michel


--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86 and The DRI Project

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Ethan Benson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 03:18:13PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> 
> I'm running 2.4.0 from linuxppc_2_3 and have never used bk. rsync is rather
> cool.

yes but if this tree is stabelized, and thus not being fiddeled with
(as it should be for a 2.4.0) then a unified diff or full out tarball
would be more convenient.   IMO anyway.

the main thing i think is needed is a *static* finalized 2.4.0 for
powerpc people can use.  not everyone wants to recompile the kernel
every day to get/fix `the tweak of the day' of actively developed
kernels.  

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Olaf Hering]

On Fri, Jan 05, Ethan Benson wrote:

> it would really be more useful if a unified patch against the 2.4.0 on
> kernel.org could be made available somewhere (penguinppc.org) to
> create a cleaned up, merged finalized 2.4.0-powerpc without requiring
> [ordinary] people to fiddle with the proprietary bk.

Its either ac1 or 2.

ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mantel/next/suse-2.4.0-*


Gruss Olaf

--
 $ man clone

BUGS
       Main feature not yet implemented...

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Tom Rini]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii, Size: 1559 bytes --]


On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:59:22AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 03:18:13PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >
> > I'm running 2.4.0 from linuxppc_2_3 and have never used bk. rsync is rather
> > cool.
>
> yes but if this tree is stabelized, and thus not being fiddeled with
> (as it should be for a 2.4.0) then a unified diff or full out tarball
> would be more convenient.   IMO anyway.

Well, the first problem is that it's now linuxppc_2_4 (which isn't a rename,
it's a new tree) which needs all the fixes from 2_3, and some of the twitchy
stuff left out.  So it may or may not be possible to get a good 2.4 tree for
a bit (except for 2_5) anyways.

> the main thing i think is needed is a *static* finalized 2.4.0 for
> powerpc people can use.  not everyone wants to recompile the kernel
> every day to get/fix `the tweak of the day' of actively developed
> kernels.

Unfortunatly, that can't happen until 2.4.0 is finalized and bug-free for
PPC.  2_3 may or may not still need some more SMP fixes for pmac, and power3
stuff is still being fixed.  Now that on the whole 2.4 is "stable", we can
try and bring ppc support up to snuff again.  (ie I'm rather sure more PCI
stuffs need to be pulled from the 2_5 tree, 'cuz that's a lot happier on
my machine than 2_3 was).

In short, what I think we'll need soon is what 2.4.0 needs now.  People other
than the usual gang of testers to try it out and find bugs.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Tony Mantler]

At 11:42 AM -0600 1/6/2001, Tom Rini wrote:
[...]
>In short, what I think we'll need soon is what 2.4.0 needs now.  People other
>than the usual gang of testers to try it out and find bugs.

For the record, where is an rsync/tgz for the current 'needs testing' tree?
I haven't had a bootable kernel on my 9600/200mp since 2.4.0-test11
linux-pmac-devel rsync.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)


--
Tony "Nicoya" Mantler - Renaissance Nerd Extraordinaire - nicoya@apia.dhs.org
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada           --           http://nicoya.feline.pp.se/


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Derek Homeier]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:22:19 -0600, Tony Mantler <nicoya@apia.dhs.org> wrote:
>
> At 11:42 AM -0600 1/6/2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> [...]
> >In short, what I think we'll need soon is what 2.4.0 needs now.  People other
> >than the usual gang of testers to try it out and find bugs.
>
> For the record, where is an rsync/tgz for the current 'needs testing' tree?
> I haven't had a bootable kernel on my 9600/200mp since 2.4.0-test11
> linux-pmac-devel rsync.
>
Which tree is the 2.4.0 on rsync at ppc.samba.org::linux-pmac-devel?

For the record, it builds o.k. and has been running well on my Lombard
so (no SMP configured!) far, except for one panic I was unable to reproduce
yet.

I have some problems with dmasound and ppp modules, though. After some
fiddling with modules.conf I was able to get the mixer (from gkrellm)
to work and sound from internal and external speakers by aliasing
char-major-13 to dmasound_awacs, but there are occasional messages about
several sound-slot-[01] and sound-services-[01]-[013](?) modules
missing. The mixer tends to hang and has to be killed then. While
mpg123 did work, xmms always crashes with a Bus error on startup.

I can't get a ppp connection under 2.4.0 either (didn't work with any of
the -test kernels). The connection itself seems to be established correctly,
but then pppd or chat have problems with the terminal type:

Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda kernel: CSLIP: code copyright 1989 Regents of the University of California
Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda kernel: PPP generic driver version 2.4.1
Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda pppd[834]: pppd 2.3.10 started by derek, uid 2300
Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda kernel: PowerMac Z8530 serial driver version 2.0
Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda kernel: tty00 at 0xcd832020 (irq = 15) is a Z8530 ESCC (cobalt modem)
Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda kernel: tty01 at 0xcd853000 (irq = 16) is a Z8530 ESCC (IrDA)
[...]
Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda chat[836]: CONNECT
Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda chat[836]:  -- got it
Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda chat[836]: send (^M)
Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda pppd[834]: Serial connection established.
Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda pppd[834]: Using interface ppp0
Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda pppd[834]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0
Jan  7 22:27:34 miranda pppd[834]: Hangup (SIGHUP)
Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda pppd[834]: Connection terminated.
Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda pppd[834]: tcflush failed: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler
Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda chat[840]: Can't get terminal parameters: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler
Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda pppd[834]: disconnect script failed
Jan  7 22:27:41 miranda pppd[834]: Exit.

That last error means "I/O-error".
With 2.2 kernels, at this point the compression modules would be loaded:

Jan  8 11:11:15 miranda pppd[694]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0
Jan  8 11:11:16 miranda kernel: PPP BSD Compression module registered
Jan  8 11:11:16 miranda kernel: PPP Deflate Compression module registered

but under 2.4 they aren't loaded and neither do they seem to be missed:

root@miranda:634$ lsmod
Module                  Size  Used by
macserial              38176   1  (autoclean)
ppp_async               8672   0  (autoclean) (unused)
ppp_generic            21696   1  (autoclean) [ppp_async]
slhc                    4560   0  (autoclean) [ppp_generic]

(it doesn't make a difference when I load them manually).

I had to set the following aliases to start the connection in the first
place:

alias char-major-108  ppp
alias ppp ppp_async
alias tty-ldisc-3 ppp_async
#
alias ppp-compress-21 bsd_comp
alias ppp-compress-24 ppp_deflate
alias ppp-compress-26 ppp_deflate

Any ideas?

							Derek


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Ethan Benson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 757 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:35:23PM +0100, Derek Homeier wrote:

> I can't get a ppp connection under 2.4.0 either (didn't work with any of
> the -test kernels). The connection itself seems to be established correctly,
> but then pppd or chat have problems with the terminal type:
> 
> Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda kernel: CSLIP: code copyright 1989 Regents of the University of California
> Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda kernel: PPP generic driver version 2.4.1
> Jan  7 22:26:35 miranda pppd[834]: pppd 2.3.10 started by derek, uid 2300
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^

you need version 2.4.0 of the userspace ppp daemon to work with 2.4 kernels.

see linux/Documentation/Changes

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Iain Sandoe]

Hi Derek,

Mon, Jan 8, 2001, Derek Homeier wrote:

[...] re 2.4.0 tree at ppc.samba,org (I think ;-).

> I have some problems with dmasound and ppp modules, though. After some
> fiddling with modules.conf I was able to get the mixer (from gkrellm)
> to work and sound from internal and external speakers by aliasing
> char-major-13 to dmasound_awacs, but there are occasional messages about
> several sound-slot-[01] and sound-services-[01]-[013](?) modules
> missing. The mixer tends to hang and has to be killed then. While
> mpg123 did work, xmms always crashes with a Bus error on startup.

Hmm.  I built ppc.samba.org::linux-pmac-devel the other day (in response to
another query) and the dmasound module appeared to be fine.

Those messages relate to OSS (or even ALSA support, don't know without
checking) - and don't originate from the dmasound code.  Possibly there are
still facilities (like the DSP_GETCAPS type) that are not completely
implemented (or still not implemented at all).  I'll look when I get back to
it - or someone else can ;-).

For now, I suggest that (unless you desperately need it), - you disable the
OSS stuff in your .config.

ciao,
Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Kaoru Fukui]

From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
To: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:42:47 -0700


> Well, the first problem is that it's now linuxppc_2_4 (which isn't a rename,
> it's a new tree) which needs all the fixes from 2_3, and some of the twitchy
> stuff left out.  So it may or may not be possible to get a good 2.4 tree
for
> a bit (except for 2_5) anyways.

What port number is bk linuxppc_2_4?
May our user access this linuxppc_2_4?

Kaoru

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:07:03AM +0900, Kaoru Fukui wrote:
> From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
> To: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
> Subject: Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1
> Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:42:47 -0700
>
>
> > Well, the first problem is that it's now linuxppc_2_4 (which isn't a rename,
> > it's a new tree) which needs all the fixes from 2_3, and some of the twitchy
> > stuff left out.  So it may or may not be possible to get a good 2.4 tree
> for
> > a bit (except for 2_5) anyways.
>
> What port number is bk linuxppc_2_4?
> May our user access this linuxppc_2_4?

2_4 is on the same port as where 2_3 used to be.  2_4 is once again working,
so everyone go and try that tree on your machine.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Iain Sandoe]

Mon, Jan 8, 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> 2_4 is on the same port as where 2_3 used to be.  2_4 is once again working,
> so everyone go and try that tree on your machine.

so what's on the rsync linuxppc_2_3 ?

(for those of us who still haven't had time to tangle with bk ;-)

and can I expect it to build?
what state does it represent?
(i.e. is it a continuation of the same tree - or a rebuild from the 2.4.0
final)

is there any point trying kernel.org 2.4.0 final? (or ac3 - which I pulled
last night)


Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:16:24PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> Mon, Jan 8, 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> > 2_4 is on the same port as where 2_3 used to be.  2_4 is once again working,
> > so everyone go and try that tree on your machine.
>
> so what's on the rsync linuxppc_2_3 ?

No idea.  It might be 2_4 it might not be. :)

> (for those of us who still haven't had time to tangle with bk ;-)
>
> and can I expect it to build?
> what state does it represent?
> (i.e. is it a continuation of the same tree - or a rebuild from the 2.4.0
> final)

The 2_4 tree is building.  If it's not building, report it here.
It represents what will someday get to Linus.  Hopefully sooner rather than
later.  It's a new tree which is the old tree.  Cort made a new one, called
2_4 and I put all of our changes from 2_3 back in.  It's based off of 2.4.0
final.

> is there any point trying kernel.org 2.4.0 final? (or ac3 - which I pulled
> last night)

No.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:16:24PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> > (for those of us who still haven't had time to tangle with bk ;-)
> >
> > and can I expect it to build?
> > what state does it represent?
> > (i.e. is it a continuation of the same tree - or a rebuild from the 2.4.0
> > final)
>
> The 2_4 tree is building.  If it's not building, report it here.
> It represents what will someday get to Linus.  Hopefully sooner rather than
> later.  It's a new tree which is the old tree.  Cort made a new one, called
> 2_4 and I put all of our changes from 2_3 back in.  It's based off of 2.4.0
> final.
>
> > is there any point trying kernel.org 2.4.0 final? (or ac3 - which I pulled
> > last night)

It may help to create nightly diffs between Linus' 2.4.0 and linuxppc_2_4 and
put them on some FTP site. People still more like patches than bk :-)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:54:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:16:24PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> > > (for those of us who still haven't had time to tangle with bk ;-)
> > >
> > > and can I expect it to build?
> > > what state does it represent?
> > > (i.e. is it a continuation of the same tree - or a rebuild from the 2.4.0
> > > final)
> >
> > The 2_4 tree is building.  If it's not building, report it here.
> > It represents what will someday get to Linus.  Hopefully sooner rather than
> > later.  It's a new tree which is the old tree.  Cort made a new one, called
> > 2_4 and I put all of our changes from 2_3 back in.  It's based off of 2.4.0
> > final.
> >
> > > is there any point trying kernel.org 2.4.0 final? (or ac3 - which I pulled
> > > last night)
>
> It may help to create nightly diffs between Linus' 2.4.0 and linuxppc_2_4 and
> put them on some FTP site. People still more like patches than bk :-)

Doesn't sound like a bad idea. :)

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Larry McVoy]

On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 05:54:00PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> It may help to create nightly diffs between Linus' 2.4.0 and linuxppc_2_4 and
> put them on some FTP site.

bk help export

you want

bk export -tpatch

Cort's been using it for a year or more to send Linus patches.
--
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > is there any point trying kernel.org 2.4.0 final? (or ac3 - which I pulled
> > > last night)
>
> It may help to create nightly diffs between Linus' 2.4.0 and linuxppc_2_4 and
> put them on some FTP site. People still more like patches than bk :-)
                                               ^^^^
My sincere apologies for the people who may misunderstand what I was trying to
say. Bitkeeper is a fine tool!

But many people may prefer to download the (small?) patch to make plain 2.4.0
usable on PPC over downloading bk and the bk tree.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Derek Homeier]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andreas Tobler wrote:

> Hallo Derek,
>
> ich bin gerade in der Hetz, schau mal unter lists.linuxppc.org dev
> Stichwort ppp.
>
> Soweit ich mich erinnere brauchst Du das ppp-2.4.0 packet.
> ftp.linuxcare.com.au/pub/ppp
>
> > [...]
> > Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda chat[836]: CONNECT
> > Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda chat[836]:  -- got it
> > Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda chat[836]: send (^M)
> > Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda pppd[834]: Serial connection established.
> > Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda pppd[834]: Using interface ppp0
> > Jan  7 22:27:11 miranda pppd[834]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0
> > Jan  7 22:27:34 miranda pppd[834]: Hangup (SIGHUP)
> > Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda pppd[834]: Connection terminated.
> > Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda pppd[834]: tcflush failed: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler
> > Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda chat[840]: Can't get terminal parameters: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler
> > Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda pppd[834]: disconnect script failed
> > Jan  7 22:27:41 miranda pppd[834]: Exit.
> >
> > That last error means "I/O-error".
> > With 2.2 kernels, at this point the compression modules would be loaded:
> >
> > Jan  8 11:11:15 miranda pppd[694]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0
> > Jan  8 11:11:16 miranda kernel: PPP BSD Compression module registered
> > Jan  8 11:11:16 miranda kernel: PPP Deflate Compression module registered
> >
> > but under 2.4 they aren't loaded and neither do they seem to be missed:
> >
Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda pppd[834]: tcflush failed: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler
Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda chat[840]: Can't get terminal parameters:
Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler
Jan  7 22:27:40 miranda pppd[834]: disconnect script failed

Thanks for the link, Andreas, but upgrading to ppp-2.4.0 did not solve
the whole  problem. Instead of the tcflush problem it terminates now
immediately (1-2 secs) after "Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0" with
"Hangup (SIGHUP)" and "Modem hangup".
The comression modules still aren't loaded.

Thanks,
							Derek


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Derek Homeier]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Iain Sandoe wrote:

> Hi Derek,
>
> Mon, Jan 8, 2001, Derek Homeier wrote:
>
> [...] re 2.4.0 tree at ppc.samba,org (I think ;-).
>
> > I have some problems with dmasound and ppp modules, though. After some
> > fiddling with modules.conf I was able to get the mixer (from gkrellm)
> > to work and sound from internal and external speakers by aliasing
> > char-major-13 to dmasound_awacs, but there are occasional messages about
> > several sound-slot-[01] and sound-services-[01]-[013](?) modules
> > missing. The mixer tends to hang and has to be killed then. While
> > mpg123 did work, xmms always crashes with a Bus error on startup.
>
> Hmm.  I built ppc.samba.org::linux-pmac-devel the other day (in response to
> another query) and the dmasound module appeared to be fine.
>
> Those messages relate to OSS (or even ALSA support, don't know without
> checking) - and don't originate from the dmasound code.  Possibly there are
> still facilities (like the DSP_GETCAPS type) that are not completely
> implemented (or still not implemented at all).  I'll look when I get back to
> it - or someone else can ;-).
>
> For now, I suggest that (unless you desperately need it), - you disable the
> OSS stuff in your .config.
>

O.K., did that (I did not have ALSA enabled in the first place), and didn't
see the errors again. Nonetheless, xmms is still erring on the Bus
(i.e. crashes as soon it is started).

Cheers,
							Derek


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Iain Sandoe]

On Tue, Jan 9, 2001,  Derek Homeier  wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> For now, I suggest that (unless you desperately need it), - you disable the
>> OSS stuff in your .config.

> O.K., did that (I did not have ALSA enabled in the first place), and didn't
> see the errors again. Nonetheless, xmms is still erring on the Bus
> (i.e. crashes as soon it is started).

OK.  I'm getting back up to steam - just sorting out the bk stuff :-/

You might trawl the list for xmms comments - I believe that there were
issues that others resolved.  Which version of xmms?

any way of you telling me where xmms is trashing in the dmaosund driver?

- there were a couple of fixes I did in the back-port that might not be in
the 2.4.0 version - I'll try and post those RSN.

(AFAIK ksymoops is still broken for ppc)...

Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: status of ppc support in official 2.4.0 or Alan's 2.4.0-ac1

[Derek Homeier]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Iain Sandoe wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2001,  Derek Homeier  wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >> For now, I suggest that (unless you desperately need it), - you disable the
> >> OSS stuff in your .config.
>
> > O.K., did that (I did not have ALSA enabled in the first place), and didn't
> > see the errors again. Nonetheless, xmms is still erring on the Bus
> > (i.e. crashes as soon it is started).
>
> OK.  I'm getting back up to steam - just sorting out the bk stuff :-/
>
> You might trawl the list for xmms comments - I believe that there were
> issues that others resolved.  Which version of xmms?
>
1.0.1

> any way of you telling me where xmms is trashing in the dmaosund driver?
>
Actually it seems to crash before the sound modules are even loaded, so
I'm no longer sure it is dmasound-related, but it definitely only occurs in
2.4.
Still, even without OSS enabled, sound behaves very badly. The speaker tends
to mute in the middle of playing a file, and some apps like wmapm or
wmmon mysteriously crash while sound output is active.

The "modprobe: Can't locate module sound-service-1-0" and
"modprobe: Can't locate module sound-slot-1" messages still appear when
I'm starting gmix.

Cheers,
							Derek


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/