Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ?

Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ?

[Yu Bo-BOYU1]

Did anyone know if busybox of hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx work or
not ?
I got error "Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted"
no matter
the root is mounted on NFS or ramfs.

If I use the 2M ram image (used bash instead of busybox) from DENX, it
worked fine.

Any suggestions ?

Thanks.

Bo



Starting at 0x800000...

loaded at:     00800000 008941BC
zimage at:     00805900 00890FD9
avail ram:     00400000 00800000

Linux/PPC load: console=ttyS0,9600 root=/dev/nfs dev=eth0
ip=192.168.0.100:192.1
68.0.50:192.168.0.50
nfsroot=192.168.0.50:/opt/hardhat/previewkit/ppc/74xx/targe
t
Uncompressing Linux...done.
Now booting the kernel
Memory BAT mapping: BAT2=128Mb, BAT3=0Mb, residual: 0Mb
Total memory = 128MB; using 256kB for hash table (at c0180000)
Linux version 2.4.17_mvl21 (root@ibm-t30) (gcc version 2.95.3 20010315
(release/
MontaVista)) #187 Sat May 3 17:29:50 CDT 2003
Host bridge init okay
Motorola SPS Sandpoint Test Platform
Sandpoint port (C) 2000, 2001 MontaVista Software, Inc. (source@mvista.com)
On node 0 totalpages: 32768
zone(0): 32768 pages.
zone(1): 0 pages.
zone(2): 0 pages.
Kernel command line: console=ttyS0,9600 root=/dev/nfs dev=eth0
ip=192.168.0.100:
192.168.0.50:192.168.0.50
nfsroot=192.168.0.50:/opt/hardhat/previewkit/ppc/74xx/
target
OpenPIC Version 1.2 (1 CPUs and 26 IRQ sources) at fdfd0000
time_init: decrementer frequency = 1.000000 MHz
Calibrating delay loop... 31.74 BogoMIPS
Memory: 127132k available (1020k kernel code, 396k data, 76k init, 0k
highmem)
Dentry-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
Inode-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 4, 65536 bytes)
Mount-cache hash table entries: 2048 (order: 2, 16384 bytes)
Buffer-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 3, 32768 bytes)
Page-cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
PCI: Probing PCI hardware
Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4
Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
Initializing RT netlink socket
Starting kswapd
Disabling the Out Of Memory Killer
Serial driver version 5.05c (2001-07-08) with MANY_PORTS SHARE_IRQ
SERIAL_PCI en
abled
ttyS00 at 0xfdfce000 (irq = 16) is a TI16750
block: 128 slots per queue, batch=32
RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 65536K size 1024 blocksize
loop: loaded (max 8 devices)
Linux Tulip driver version 0.9.15-pre9 (Nov 6, 2001)
tulip0: Old style EEPROM with no media selection information.
eth0: BPP Digital DS21143 Tulip rev 65 at 0xbfff80, EEPROM not present,
00:4C:69
:6E:75:79, IRQ 20.
NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP, IGMP
IP: routing cache hash table of 1024 buckets, 8Kbytes
TCP: Hash tables configured (established 8192 bind 8192)
IP-Config: Guessing netmask 255.255.255.0
IP-Config: Complete:
      device=eth0, addr=192.168.0.100, mask=255.255.255.0, gw=192.168.0.50,
     host=192.168.0.100, domain=, nis-domain=(none),
     bootserver=192.168.0.50, rootserver=192.168.0.50, rootpath=
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux NET4.0.
Looking up port of RPC 100003/2 on 192.168.0.50
Looking up port of RPC 100005/1 on 192.168.0.50
VFS: Mounted root (nfs filesystem).
Freeing unused kernel memory: 76k init
done open console...
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted


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

Re: Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ?

[Mark Hatle]

Yes it worked.. and it worked well..

That message is not caused (directly) by userspace software, that is a kernel crash.

I suspect you have a hidden kernel problem that one version of busybox is
hitting then another is not.

--Mark

Yu Bo-BOYU1 wrote:
> Did anyone know if busybox of hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx work or
> not ?
> I got error "Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted"
> no matter
> the root is mounted on NFS or ramfs.
>
> If I use the 2M ram image (used bash instead of busybox) from DENX, it
> worked fine.
>
> Any suggestions ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bo
>
>
>
> Starting at 0x800000...
>
> loaded at:     00800000 008941BC
> zimage at:     00805900 00890FD9
> avail ram:     00400000 00800000
>
> Linux/PPC load: console=ttyS0,9600 root=/dev/nfs dev=eth0
> ip=192.168.0.100:192.1
> 68.0.50:192.168.0.50
> nfsroot=192.168.0.50:/opt/hardhat/previewkit/ppc/74xx/targe
> t
> Uncompressing Linux...done.
> Now booting the kernel
> Memory BAT mapping: BAT2=128Mb, BAT3=0Mb, residual: 0Mb
> Total memory = 128MB; using 256kB for hash table (at c0180000)
> Linux version 2.4.17_mvl21 (root@ibm-t30) (gcc version 2.95.3 20010315
> (release/
> MontaVista)) #187 Sat May 3 17:29:50 CDT 2003
> Host bridge init okay
> Motorola SPS Sandpoint Test Platform
> Sandpoint port (C) 2000, 2001 MontaVista Software, Inc. (source@mvista.com)
> On node 0 totalpages: 32768
> zone(0): 32768 pages.
> zone(1): 0 pages.
> zone(2): 0 pages.
> Kernel command line: console=ttyS0,9600 root=/dev/nfs dev=eth0
> ip=192.168.0.100:
> 192.168.0.50:192.168.0.50
> nfsroot=192.168.0.50:/opt/hardhat/previewkit/ppc/74xx/
> target
> OpenPIC Version 1.2 (1 CPUs and 26 IRQ sources) at fdfd0000
> time_init: decrementer frequency = 1.000000 MHz
> Calibrating delay loop... 31.74 BogoMIPS
> Memory: 127132k available (1020k kernel code, 396k data, 76k init, 0k
> highmem)
> Dentry-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
> Inode-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 4, 65536 bytes)
> Mount-cache hash table entries: 2048 (order: 2, 16384 bytes)
> Buffer-cache hash table entries: 8192 (order: 3, 32768 bytes)
> Page-cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
> POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
> PCI: Probing PCI hardware
> Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4
> Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
> Initializing RT netlink socket
> Starting kswapd
> Disabling the Out Of Memory Killer
> Serial driver version 5.05c (2001-07-08) with MANY_PORTS SHARE_IRQ
> SERIAL_PCI en
> abled
> ttyS00 at 0xfdfce000 (irq = 16) is a TI16750
> block: 128 slots per queue, batch=32
> RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 65536K size 1024 blocksize
> loop: loaded (max 8 devices)
> Linux Tulip driver version 0.9.15-pre9 (Nov 6, 2001)
> tulip0: Old style EEPROM with no media selection information.
> eth0: BPP Digital DS21143 Tulip rev 65 at 0xbfff80, EEPROM not present,
> 00:4C:69
> :6E:75:79, IRQ 20.
> NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
> IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP, IGMP
> IP: routing cache hash table of 1024 buckets, 8Kbytes
> TCP: Hash tables configured (established 8192 bind 8192)
> IP-Config: Guessing netmask 255.255.255.0
> IP-Config: Complete:
>       device=eth0, addr=192.168.0.100, mask=255.255.255.0, gw=192.168.0.50,
>      host=192.168.0.100, domain=, nis-domain=(none),
>      bootserver=192.168.0.50, rootserver=192.168.0.50, rootpath=
> NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux NET4.0.
> Looking up port of RPC 100003/2 on 192.168.0.50
> Looking up port of RPC 100005/1 on 192.168.0.50
> VFS: Mounted root (nfs filesystem).
> Freeing unused kernel memory: 76k init
> done open console...
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
> Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted
>
>
>
>
>


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

Re: Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ?

[Dale Farnsworth]

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Yu Bo-BOYU1 wrote:
>
> Did anyone know if busybox of hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx work or
> not ?
> I got error "Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted"
> no matter
> the root is mounted on NFS or ramfs.

It's been a while since I last saw it, but this reminds me of what
happens when running the 74xx userspace on a kernel that doesn't have
altivec support enabled.

-Dale Farnsworth

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

Re: Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ?

[Matt Porter]

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:15:44PM -0700, Dale Farnsworth wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Yu Bo-BOYU1 wrote:
> >
> > Did anyone know if busybox of hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx work or
> > not ?
> > I got error "Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted"
> > no matter
> > the root is mounted on NFS or ramfs.
>
> It's been a while since I last saw it, but this reminds me of what
> happens when running the 74xx userspace on a kernel that doesn't have
> altivec support enabled.

Just to confirm, with the MSR VEC off on a 74xx core, it will definitely
generate that bad trap (UnknownException) on mvista 74xx userspace.  I've
seen it on 7xx's that were unintentionally run on the ppc_74xx userspace,
for example.

Regards,
--
Matt Porter
mporter@kernel.crashing.org

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

Re: Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ?

[Mark Hatle]

Matt Porter wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:15:44PM -0700, Dale Farnsworth wrote:
>
>>On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Yu Bo-BOYU1 wrote:
>>
>>>Did anyone know if busybox of hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx work or
>>>not ?
>>>I got error "Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not tainted"
>>>no matter
>>>the root is mounted on NFS or ramfs.
>>
>>It's been a while since I last saw it, but this reminds me of what
>>happens when running the 74xx userspace on a kernel that doesn't have
>>altivec support enabled.
>
>
> Just to confirm, with the MSR VEC off on a 74xx core, it will definitely
> generate that bad trap (UnknownException) on mvista 74xx userspace.  I've
> seen it on 7xx's that were unintentionally run on the ppc_74xx userspace,
> for example.

That would definatly explain it then.  MontaVista ppc_74xx userspace has altivec
enabled in glibc.  So the userspace DOES use altivec calls.  (Altivec registers
are saved on signals and longjmp... this allows you to use altivec instructions
safely in complex programs.)

--Mark


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

RE: Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ?

[Yu Bo-BOYU1]

I rebuilt the zImage and this time everything is ok.

Thanks.

Bo Yu
Motorola GTSS
1-817-245-6725


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hatle [mailto:fray@mvista.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 7:45 AM
To: Matt Porter
Cc: Dale Farnsworth; Yu Bo-BOYU1; linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ?


Matt Porter wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:15:44PM -0700, Dale Farnsworth wrote:
>
>>On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Yu Bo-BOYU1 wrote:
>>
>>>Did anyone know if busybox of hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx work
or
>>>not ?
>>>I got error "Bad trap at PC: 300162fc, SR: f032, vector=f00    Not
tainted"
>>>no matter
>>>the root is mounted on NFS or ramfs.
>>
>>It's been a while since I last saw it, but this reminds me of what
>>happens when running the 74xx userspace on a kernel that doesn't have
>>altivec support enabled.
>
>
> Just to confirm, with the MSR VEC off on a 74xx core, it will definitely
> generate that bad trap (UnknownException) on mvista 74xx userspace.  I've
> seen it on 7xx's that were unintentionally run on the ppc_74xx userspace,
> for example.

That would definatly explain it then.  MontaVista ppc_74xx userspace has
altivec
enabled in glibc.  So the userspace DOES use altivec calls.  (Altivec
registers
are saved on signals and longjmp... this allows you to use altivec
instructions
safely in complex programs.)

--Mark

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