From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 21:11:54 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Dale Farnsworth Cc: Yu Bo-BOYU1 , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Busybox of Hardhat preview 2.1 for sandpoint 74xx ? Message-ID: <20030505211154.A12082@home.com> References: <0B0A39652BB0D411BCCF00508B9512EC08AEBD8A@tx14exm05.ftw.mot.com> <20030506031544.GA29462@rover.farnsworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20030506031544.GA29462@rover.farnsworth.org>; from dale@farnsworth.org on Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:15:44PM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: 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/