Changes in the Valkyrie driver from 2.1.24 to 2.2.18

Changes in the Valkyrie driver from 2.1.24 to 2.2.18

[Chris Boot]

Hi,

It has struck me, after weeks of research, that my problems in booting my
5400/180 cold through OpenFirmware are caused by changes in the Linux
kernel.  This machine uses the Valkyrie display device, and in 2.1.24 this
is handled by directly accessing its memory, whereas in 2.2.18 it is
accessed through OpenFirmware.  OpenFirmware is known to choke on this
machine when using the display (as in CLAIM failed).

My suspicions were aroused when, after disabling CONFIG_FB, the machine
booted cold without any problems whatsoever.

Is it at all possible to use Valkyrie without going through OpenFirmware at
all?  It is not selectable if I disable CONFIG_FB_OF.  Would it be possible
to port the older non-OF driver to the newer kernel?  What are the
disadvantages of using the older memory-based driver to the newer OF-based
driver?

Thanks.

--
    .-.        Chris Boot
    /v\     bootc@worldnet.fr
   // \\
  /(   )\   L   I   N   U   X
   ^^-^^   >Phear the Penguin<


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

Re: Changes in the Valkyrie driver from 2.1.24 to 2.2.18

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Chris Boot wrote:
> It has struck me, after weeks of research, that my problems in booting my
> 5400/180 cold through OpenFirmware are caused by changes in the Linux
> kernel.  This machine uses the Valkyrie display device, and in 2.1.24 this
> is handled by directly accessing its memory, whereas in 2.2.18 it is
> accessed through OpenFirmware.  OpenFirmware is known to choke on this
> machine when using the display (as in CLAIM failed).
>
> My suspicions were aroused when, after disabling CONFIG_FB, the machine
> booted cold without any problems whatsoever.
>
> Is it at all possible to use Valkyrie without going through OpenFirmware at
> all?  It is not selectable if I disable CONFIG_FB_OF.  Would it be possible
> to port the older non-OF driver to the newer kernel?  What are the
> disadvantages of using the older memory-based driver to the newer OF-based
> driver?

Have you tried 2.4.0-testX yet?

In 2.4.0-testX, valkyriefb is initialized without the help of offb.
I don't have a 2.2.18 tree at hand, but you can probably use a similar method
in 2.2.18 with some hacking (call valkyriefb_init() from drivers/video/fbmem.c,
and not offb_init()).

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: Changes in the Valkyrie driver from 2.1.24 to 2.2.18

[Martin Costabel]

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Chris Boot wrote:
> > It has struck me, after weeks of research, that my problems in booting my
> > 5400/180 cold through OpenFirmware are caused by changes in the Linux

Chris, are you trying to boot with Quik? This, in fact, stopped working
on the 5400/6400 around kernel 2.1.125, IIRC. What's wrong with using
BootX?

> > kernel.  This machine uses the Valkyrie display device, and in 2.1.24 this
> > is handled by directly accessing its memory, whereas in 2.2.18 it is
> > accessed through OpenFirmware.

The main change from 2.1.24 was to use the FB drivers structure. The
init through offb or through fbmem has no effect whatsoever if one boots
from BootX.

> >                                OpenFirmware is known to choke on this
> > machine when using the display (as in CLAIM failed).

And seeing people fight against this windmill was one of the motivations
for BenH to develop BootX in 1998.

> >
> > My suspicions were aroused when, after disabling CONFIG_FB, the machine
> > booted cold without any problems whatsoever.

And what display?

> >
> > Is it at all possible to use Valkyrie without going through OpenFirmware at
> > all?  It is not selectable if I disable CONFIG_FB_OF.  Would it be possible
> > to port the older non-OF driver to the newer kernel?  What are the
> > disadvantages of using the older memory-based driver to the newer OF-based
> > driver?
>
> Have you tried 2.4.0-testX yet?
>
> In 2.4.0-testX, valkyriefb is initialized without the help of offb.
> I don't have a 2.2.18 tree at hand, but you can probably use a similar method
> in 2.2.18 with some hacking (call valkyriefb_init() from drivers/video/fbmem.c,
> and not offb_init()).

Geert, this modification is contained in the 2.2.18 kernels from bk and
from Paul. It just didn't make it into the official 2.2.18 tree. But
most users of valkyrie probably don't care anyway.

--
Martin

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

Re: Changes in the Valkyrie driver from 2.1.24 to 2.2.18

[Chris Boot]

> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Chris Boot wrote:
>>> It has struck me, after weeks of research, that my problems in booting my
>>> 5400/180 cold through OpenFirmware are caused by changes in the Linux
>
> Chris, are you trying to boot with Quik? This, in fact, stopped working
> on the 5400/6400 around kernel 2.1.125, IIRC. What's wrong with using
> BootX?

Well, I was hoping not to have any Mac OS on this machine except a
full-blown Mac OS 9 when needed.  This would allow me to Quik-boot Linux and
set OF to use /AAPL,ROM when needed through my serial console.  I don't
believe I can choose between booting Linux/Mac OS in any other system using
a serial console (only built-in monitor).

>>>
>>> My suspicions were aroused when, after disabling CONFIG_FB, the machine
>>> booted cold without any problems whatsoever.
>
> And what display?

Well, I usually use the built-in one, but when I disabled CONFIG_FB, I
didn't use a display, I just used my serial console / telnet.

>>>
>>> Is it at all possible to use Valkyrie without going through OpenFirmware at
>>> all?  It is not selectable if I disable CONFIG_FB_OF.  Would it be possible
>>> to port the older non-OF driver to the newer kernel?  What are the
>>> disadvantages of using the older memory-based driver to the newer OF-based
>>> driver?
>>
>> Have you tried 2.4.0-testX yet?
>>
>> In 2.4.0-testX, valkyriefb is initialized without the help of offb.
>> I don't have a 2.2.18 tree at hand, but you can probably use a similar method
>> in 2.2.18 with some hacking (call valkyriefb_init() from
>> drivers/video/fbmem.c,
>> and not offb_init()).
>
> Geert, this modification is contained in the 2.2.18 kernels from bk and
> from Paul. It just didn't make it into the official 2.2.18 tree. But
> most users of valkyrie probably don't care anyway.

I haven't tried the 2.4 tree because I didn't know how reliable it was.  I
guess it's time to try it now.  How/where do I get it?

You say that these changes didn't make it into the kernel.org tree, but
where do I get the BK images?  Is there a way of getting it through
FTP/HTTP?

Thanks,

--
    .-.        Chris Boot
    /v\     bootc@worldnet.fr
   // \\
  /(   )\   L   I   N   U   X
   ^^-^^   >Phear the Penguin<


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