* 2.6.x on 405CR @ 2004-09-27 10:46 Piotr Perak 2004-09-27 13:57 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-27 15:19 ` Matt Porter 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-27 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linuxppc-dev Hi. Anyone seen 2.6.x kernel working on 405CR? I can't make it boot. Piotr Perak ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-27 10:46 2.6.x on 405CR Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-27 13:57 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-27 14:10 ` Jon Masters ` (2 more replies) 2004-09-27 15:19 ` Matt Porter 1 sibling, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-27 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Piotr Perak; +Cc: linuxppc-dev On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 12:46:07PM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote: > Hi. > > Anyone seen 2.6.x kernel working on 405CR? > I can't make it boot. I can't recall anybody around here having a 405CR. That's probably why you didn't get a reponse the first time you posted this. Since you are failing in ocp_add_one_device() and you have a processor which doesn't have a chip definition in 2.6, the problem is probably somewhere there. Doublecheck your arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405cr.c (you do have one, right?) against a known good one in arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405gp.c I wish I could rent you my BDI2000 to speed up your debugging, but we're too far away from each other. :) -Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-27 13:57 ` Matt Porter @ 2004-09-27 14:10 ` Jon Masters 2004-09-27 15:16 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-27 16:24 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-28 9:57 ` Piotr Perak 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Jon Masters @ 2004-09-27 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Piotr Perak On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:57:58 -0700, Matt Porter <mporter@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 12:46:07PM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote: > > Hi. > > > > Anyone seen 2.6.x kernel working on 405CR? > > I can't make it boot. > I can't recall anybody around here having a 405CR. That's probably > why you didn't get a reponse the first time you posted this. I might get access to one at some point - I'll be getting my Virtex II tree up and running on 2.6 (PowerPC 405D) sometime soon hopefully too. > I wish I could rent you my BDI2000 to speed up your debugging, > but we're too far away from each other. :) I hate you guys. I'm using insight on an XP box with that horrid Xilinx xygwin - it's not aware of any virtual memory and I have no symbols nicely available so it's all done by hand. Jon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-27 14:10 ` Jon Masters @ 2004-09-27 15:16 ` Matt Porter 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-27 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jonathan; +Cc: Piotr Perak, linuxppc-embedded [oops...we are supposed to be on linuxppc-embedded now] On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 03:10:47PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:57:58 -0700, Matt Porter > <mporter@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 12:46:07PM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > Anyone seen 2.6.x kernel working on 405CR? > > > I can't make it boot. > > > I can't recall anybody around here having a 405CR. That's probably > > why you didn't get a reponse the first time you posted this. > > I might get access to one at some point - I'll be getting my Virtex II > tree up and running on 2.6 (PowerPC 405D) sometime soon hopefully too. Great, it would be nice to have some COTS 405CR board in the tree. If somebody wants to send me one, I'll do it, otherwise send patches. > > I wish I could rent you my BDI2000 to speed up your debugging, > > but we're too far away from each other. :) > > I hate you guys. I'm using insight on an XP box with that horrid > Xilinx xygwin - it's not aware of any virtual memory and I have no > symbols nicely available so it's all done by hand. Ouch...cygwin stuff is very ghetto. Maybe we can take up a collection for you. :) -Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-27 13:57 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-27 14:10 ` Jon Masters @ 2004-09-27 16:24 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-28 9:57 ` Piotr Perak 2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-27 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter; +Cc: linuxppc-dev On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote: > Since you are failing in ocp_add_one_device() and you have a > processor which doesn't have a chip definition in 2.6, the > problem is probably somewhere there. Doublecheck your > arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405cr.c (you do have one, right?) > against a known good one in arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405gp.c > I use ibm405cr.c that works with our running kernel 2.4.23. const struct ocp_def core_ocp[] /*__initdata*/ = { 45 { .vendor = OCP_VENDOR_IBM, 46 .function = OCP_FUNC_OPB, 47 .index = 0, 48 .paddr = OPB_BASE_START, 49 .irq = OCP_IRQ_NA, 50 .pm = OCP_CPM_NA, 51 }, 52 { .vendor = OCP_VENDOR_IBM, 53 .function = OCP_FUNC_16550, 54 .index = 0, 55 .paddr = UART0_IO_BASE, 56 .irq = UART0_INT, 57 .pm = IBM_CPM_UART0 58 }, 59 { .vendor = OCP_VENDOR_IBM, 60 .function = OCP_FUNC_16550, 61 .index = 1, 62 .paddr = UART1_IO_BASE, 63 .irq = UART1_INT, 64 .pm = IBM_CPM_UART1 65 }, 66 { .vendor = OCP_VENDOR_IBM, 67 .function = OCP_FUNC_IIC, 68 .index = 0, 69 .paddr = IIC0_BASE, 70 .irq = IIC0_IRQ, 71 .pm = IBM_CPM_IIC0 72 }, 73 { .vendor = OCP_VENDOR_IBM, 74 .function = OCP_FUNC_IIC, 75 .index = 1, 76 .paddr = IIC1_BASE, 77 .irq = IIC1_IRQ, 78 .pm = IBM_CPM_IIC1 79 }, 80 { .vendor = OCP_VENDOR_IBM, 81 .function = OCP_FUNC_GPIO, 82 .paddr = GPIO0_BASE, 83 .irq = OCP_IRQ_NA, 84 .pm = IBM_CPM_GPIO0 85 }, 86 87 /* 88 { .vendor = OCP_VENDOR_IBM, 89 .function = OCP_FUNC_USB, 90 .paddr = USB_BASE, 91 .irq = USB0_IRQ, 92 .pm = IBM_CPM_USB 93 }, 94 */ 95 { .vendor = OCP_VENDOR_INVALID 96 } 97 }; I was given clean and ported 2.4.23 kernel and was told to port 2.6.8.1. Based on differences I noticed between two 2.4.23 I tried to do same (almost) in 2.6.8.1. But all I can get is: loaded at: 00400000 009EA220 board data at: 009E713C 009E7190 relocated to: 00405384 004053D8 zimage at: 004058D7 004F2F8B initrd at: 004F3000 009E6782 avail ram: 009EB000 08000000 Linux/PPC load: console=ttyS0,115200 console=tty0 root=/dev/ram0 init=/linuxrc rw Uncompressing Linux...done. Now booting the kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-27 13:57 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-27 14:10 ` Jon Masters 2004-09-27 16:24 ` Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-28 9:57 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-28 13:44 ` Matt Porter 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-28 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote: > Since you are failing in ocp_add_one_device() and you have a > processor which doesn't have a chip definition in 2.6, the > problem is probably somewhere there. Doublecheck your > arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405cr.c (you do have one, right?) > against a known good one in arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405gp.c Because I use ibm405cr.c which works good with 2.4.23 I think that's not the problem. Remember the call stack? setup_arch() - arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c -> ocp_early_init() - arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c -> ocp_add_one_device() - arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c -> alloc_bootmem MACRO calling __alloc_bootmem_core() - mm/bootmem.c When I comment line calling ocp_early_init() I fail in: setup_arch() - arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c -> paging_init() - arch/ppc/mm/init.c -> free_area_init() - arch/ppc/mm/page_alloc.c -> free_area_init_node() - arch/ppc/mm/page_alloc.c -> alloc_bootmem_node() MACRO calling __alloc_bootmem_node - mm/bootmem.c -> __alloc_bootmem_core() - mm/bootmem.c As you can see again __alloc_bootmem_core. So maybe there's some problem with memory? Forgive me if I ask stupid questions, but this the first time I have something to do with the kernel (not counting compiling for my home PC). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-28 9:57 ` Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-28 13:44 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-28 15:47 ` Piotr Perak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-28 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Piotr Perak; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:57:44AM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote: > > > Since you are failing in ocp_add_one_device() and you have a > > processor which doesn't have a chip definition in 2.6, the > > problem is probably somewhere there. Doublecheck your > > arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405cr.c (you do have one, right?) > > against a known good one in arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405gp.c > > Because I use ibm405cr.c which works good with 2.4.23 I think that's not > the problem. Remember the call stack? Which 2.4 tree? linux-2.4, linuxppc-2.4, and linuxppc_2_4_devel haven't had explicit 405cr support that I've noticed. Since the ocp layer has changed that would leave open the possibility of a problem in translating the support to the new ocp layer. > setup_arch() - arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c > -> ocp_early_init() - arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c > -> ocp_add_one_device() - arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c > -> alloc_bootmem MACRO calling __alloc_bootmem_core() - > mm/bootmem.c > > When I comment line calling ocp_early_init() I fail in: > > setup_arch() - arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c > -> paging_init() - arch/ppc/mm/init.c > -> free_area_init() - arch/ppc/mm/page_alloc.c > -> free_area_init_node() - arch/ppc/mm/page_alloc.c > -> alloc_bootmem_node() MACRO calling __alloc_bootmem_node - > mm/bootmem.c > -> __alloc_bootmem_core() - mm/bootmem.c > > As you can see again __alloc_bootmem_core. So maybe there's some > problem with memory? Hrm, I see. Did your firmware change between your working 2.4 kernel and your non-working 2.6 kernel? If you're failing in there that would be my first thought. I suppose that's probably not that case though. > Forgive me if I ask stupid questions, but this the first time I have > something to do with the kernel (not counting compiling for my home PC). Well, the 405cr support issue is really throwing me for a loop here. If you're crashing in _alloc_bootmem_core() and haven't hacked any MM code then you're an interesting spot. Can you trace it down to the exact failure in __alloc_bootmem_core? -Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-28 13:44 ` Matt Porter @ 2004-09-28 15:47 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-28 16:43 ` Matt Porter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-28 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:57:44AM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote: > > Because I use ibm405cr.c which works good with 2.4.23 I think that's not > > the problem. Remember the call stack? > > Which 2.4 tree? linux-2.4, linuxppc-2.4, and linuxppc_2_4_devel haven't > had explicit 405cr support that I've noticed. Since the ocp layer has > changed that would leave open the possibility of a problem in translating > the support to the new ocp layer. linux-2.4 ported to our board some time ago. > > > setup_arch() - arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c > > -> ocp_early_init() - arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c > > -> ocp_add_one_device() - arch/ppc/syslib/ocp.c > > -> alloc_bootmem MACRO calling __alloc_bootmem_core() - > > mm/bootmem.c > > > > When I comment line calling ocp_early_init() I fail in: > > > > setup_arch() - arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c > > -> paging_init() - arch/ppc/mm/init.c > > -> free_area_init() - arch/ppc/mm/page_alloc.c > > -> free_area_init_node() - arch/ppc/mm/page_alloc.c > > -> alloc_bootmem_node() MACRO calling __alloc_bootmem_node - > > mm/bootmem.c > > -> __alloc_bootmem_core() - mm/bootmem.c > > > > As you can see again __alloc_bootmem_core. So maybe there's some > > problem with memory? > > Hrm, I see. Did your firmware change between your working 2.4 kernel > and your non-working 2.6 kernel? If you're failing in there that would > be my first thought. I suppose that's probably not that case though. 2.4.23 still runs on board I try to port 2.6.8.1 to. So I guess firmware is not the problem? > Well, the 405cr support issue is really throwing me for a loop here. If > you're crashing in _alloc_bootmem_core() and haven't hacked any MM code I haven't change any MM code. > then you're an interesting spot. Can you trace it down to the exact > failure in __alloc_bootmem_core? I already did it. Can you please read http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2004-September/000104.html? I described there what weird things are happening in __alloc_bootmem_core. Piotr Perak ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-28 15:47 ` Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-28 16:43 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-28 17:00 ` Mark Chambers 2004-09-29 11:20 ` Piotr Perak 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-28 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Piotr Perak; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:47:57PM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote: > > Hrm, I see. Did your firmware change between your working 2.4 kernel > > and your non-working 2.6 kernel? If you're failing in there that would > > be my first thought. I suppose that's probably not that case though. > > 2.4.23 still runs on board I try to port 2.6.8.1 to. So I guess firmware > is not the problem? In that case, it shouldn't be. > > then you're an interesting spot. Can you trace it down to the exact > > failure in __alloc_bootmem_core? > I already did it. Can you please read > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2004-September/000104.html? I > described there what weird things are happening in __alloc_bootmem_core. I see. Can you move the reset instruction to isolate the offending instruction? BTW, it's not clear how you are guaranteeing that the processor has bit 2 or 3 asserted before the dbcr0 load. If you preloaded r12 out of the scope of the code fragments shown, it's clear that r12 is getting clobbered in the subf instruction of the 2.6.8.1 fragment. Is this a hobby project or a "for profit" project? If it's for profit, then consider investing in a JTAG emulator (like BDI2000)...it'll pay for itself many times over. -Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-28 16:43 ` Matt Porter @ 2004-09-28 17:00 ` Mark Chambers 2004-09-29 11:20 ` Piotr Perak 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Mark Chambers @ 2004-09-28 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Piotr Perak; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded > > Is this a hobby project or a "for profit" project? If it's for profit, > then consider investing in a JTAG emulator (like BDI2000)...it'll pay > for itself many times over. > And if you're poor, the Wiggler from ocdemon.net is a big help, and only $150. I've only used the Wiggler under Windows, but they have free code and gdb ports that works under linux, too. Mark Chambers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-28 16:43 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-28 17:00 ` Mark Chambers @ 2004-09-29 11:20 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-29 11:58 ` Jon Masters 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-29 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote: > > > then you're an interesting spot. Can you trace it down to the exact > > > failure in __alloc_bootmem_core? > > I already did it. Can you please read > > http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2004-September/000104.html? I > > described there what weird things are happening in __alloc_bootmem_core. > > I see. Can you move the reset instruction to isolate the offending > instruction? > > BTW, it's not clear how you are guaranteeing that the processor has > bit 2 or 3 asserted before the dbcr0 load. If you preloaded r12 out of > the scope of the code fragments shown, it's clear that r12 is getting > clobbered in the subf instruction of the 2.6.8.1 fragment. My mistake. I thought I was putting immediate value 12 in DBCR0 using asm("mtspr 0x3f2, 12") in C code, but it's putting the value hold in the r12 register. I shoul read the manual correctly. So untill now we just had luck if our processor reset!? Look what I trie now. static void * __init 147 __alloc_bootmem_core(struct bootmem_data *bdata, unsigned long size, 148 unsigned long align, unsigned long goal) 149 { 150 unsigned long offset, remaining_size, areasize, preferred; 151 unsigned long i, start = 0, incr; 152 unsigned long eidx = bdata->node_low_pfn - (bdata->node_boot_start >> PAGE_SHIFT); 153 void *ret; 154 155 if(!size) { 156 printk("__alloc_bootmem_core(): zero-sized request\n"); 157 BUG(); 158 } 159 BUG_ON(align & (align-1)); 160 161 asm ("li 17, 12"); // <-- immediate value of 12 to r17 - bit 2:3 set 162 asm ("mtspr 0x3f2, 17"); // < write to DBCR0 what is in DOESN'T reset!!! r17 163 asm ("mtspr 0x3f2, 12"); // resets, but I don't know what is value of r12 asm code is: 23c: 3a 20 00 0c li r17,12 240: 7e 32 fb a6 mtdbcr0 r17 244: 7d 92 fb a6 mtdbcr0 r12 It is said in manual, that setting bits 2:3 in DBCR0 resets the processor. In my code it doesn't. :) > Is this a hobby project or a "for profit" project? If it's for profit, > then consider investing in a JTAG emulator (like BDI2000)...it'll pay > for itself many times over. I'm a trainee in some firm. They use 2.4.23 now in their boxes. Porting 2.6.8.1 to their board is my project. I was told that they have some hardware debbuger, but it doesn't work with virtual memory. Piotr Perak ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-29 11:20 ` Piotr Perak @ 2004-09-29 11:58 ` Jon Masters 2004-09-29 13:22 ` Mark Chambers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Jon Masters @ 2004-09-29 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Piotr Perak; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:20:17 +0200 (CEST), Piotr Perak <peri@aqua.aspd.pwr.wroc.pl> wrote: > I'm a trainee in some firm. They use 2.4.23 now in their boxes. Well you and I have the 2.4.23 bit in common. I'm the entire kernel team in the company I work at, which is somewhat fun. Also means lists like this are really useful on occasion. > Porting 2.6.8.1 to their board is my project. I was told that they have some > hardware debbuger, but it doesn't work with virtual memory. I don't have one capable of working with virtual memory but I do have a JTAG debugger since JTAG is used to program all of our boards - and using insight with a large cup of coffee, System.map and the output of a full objdump of the kernel binary in combination with modifying the code in memory to insert infinate loops or changing the mode in the MSR usually works for me. Seriously, if you don't have a vm capable debugger that's a lot of masochistic fun to be had debugging. Jon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-29 11:58 ` Jon Masters @ 2004-09-29 13:22 ` Mark Chambers 2004-09-29 14:22 ` Jon Masters 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Mark Chambers @ 2004-09-29 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jonathan, Piotr Perak; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded > > Porting 2.6.8.1 to their board is my project. I was told that they have some > > hardware debbuger, but it doesn't work with virtual memory. > > I don't have one capable of working with virtual memory but I do have > a JTAG debugger since JTAG is used to program all of our boards - and > using insight with a large cup of coffee, System.map and the output of > a full objdump of the kernel binary in combination with modifying the > code in memory to insert infinate loops or changing the mode in the > MSR usually works for me. Seriously, if you don't have a vm capable > debugger that's a lot of masochistic fun to be had debugging. > And just to make the point - it's not the JTAG hardware which is or is not VM capable, it's the debugger using the hardware which must be smart enough to read the MM tables and do the translations for you. Maybe if you post what hardware you have somebody would know of a gdb port that supports it. Don't let them blow you off on this - they're wasting your time and their money if you don't have a proper debugger. Just tell them we all said you need one. Mark C. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-29 13:22 ` Mark Chambers @ 2004-09-29 14:22 ` Jon Masters 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Jon Masters @ 2004-09-29 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Chambers; +Cc: Piotr Perak, linuxppc-embedded Mark Chambers wrote: > And just to make the point - it's not the JTAG hardware which is or is not > VM capable, it's the debugger using the hardware which must be smart > enough to read the MM tables and do the translations for you. Yes of course :-). > Maybe if you post what hardware you have somebody would know of a gdb port that > supports it. Don't let them blow you off on this - they're wasting your > time and their money if you don't have a proper debugger. Just tell them we all > said you need one. I've managed so far without one but agree it's a good idea to get one. ;-). Jon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.x on 405CR 2004-09-27 10:46 2.6.x on 405CR Piotr Perak 2004-09-27 13:57 ` Matt Porter @ 2004-09-27 15:19 ` Matt Porter 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2004-09-27 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Piotr Perak; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 12:46:07PM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote: > Hi. > > Anyone seen 2.6.x kernel working on 405CR? > I can't make it boot. Move this to linuxppc-embedded as per the mailing list split. -Matt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-29 19:49 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-09-27 10:46 2.6.x on 405CR Piotr Perak 2004-09-27 13:57 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-27 14:10 ` Jon Masters 2004-09-27 15:16 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-27 16:24 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-28 9:57 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-28 13:44 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-28 15:47 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-28 16:43 ` Matt Porter 2004-09-28 17:00 ` Mark Chambers 2004-09-29 11:20 ` Piotr Perak 2004-09-29 11:58 ` Jon Masters 2004-09-29 13:22 ` Mark Chambers 2004-09-29 14:22 ` Jon Masters 2004-09-27 15:19 ` Matt Porter
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).