[WBEL-devel] WBEL4 RC1 on VIA C3 CPU

[Sean Atkinson]

Hi,

I thought I'd report an issue with the WBEL4 RC1 kernel on a VIA C3
"Ezra" CPU. On booting disc one to install, the machine reboots
immediately after loading files from the boot loader. The installer's
vmlinuz appears identical with the file from
kernel-2.6.9-5.EL.WB1.i686.rpm.

The file /boot/config-2.6.9-5.EL.WB1 from this package includes:

CONFIG_M686=y
...
CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT=7

I also tried vmlinuz from Debian's kerne-image-2.6.11-1-686 since it's
config file lists a cache shift of 5 which I hoped matched the Ezra.
However that behaves similarly.

The only kernels that successfully boot such as TTYLinux 4.5 and WBEL3's
2.4.21-15.EL BOOT include "CONFIG_M386=y" in their configs.

Will the final WBEL4 release support general 386 class processors, or
require "proper" 686 models instead?

Cheers,

Sean.

[Johnny Hughes]

Post by Sean Atkinson
Hi,
I thought I'd report an issue with the WBEL4 RC1 kernel on a VIA C3
"Ezra" CPU. On booting disc one to install, the machine reboots
immediately after loading files from the boot loader. The installer's
vmlinuz appears identical with the file from
kernel-2.6.9-5.EL.WB1.i686.rpm.
CONFIG_M686=y
...
CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT=7
I also tried vmlinuz from Debian's kerne-image-2.6.11-1-686 since it's
config file lists a cache shift of 5 which I hoped matched the Ezra.
However that behaves similarly.
The only kernels that successfully boot such as TTYLinux 4.5 and WBEL3's
2.4.21-15.EL BOOT include "CONFIG_M386=y" in their configs.
Will the final WBEL4 release support general 386 class processors, or
require "proper" 686 models instead?
Cheers,
Sean.

Sean,

The RHEL4 kernel doesn't support i586 ... I don't think that John modified
the WBEL4-RC1 boot kernel to support i586 either. (I could be wrong).

If WBEL4 is not going to support i586, you might try CentOS-4, as the boot
kernel for anaconda is i586 and there is i586 support.

Before anyone complains about CentOS trying to steal WBEL users ... I am
not. If WBEL-4 supports i586 and your are a WBEL user, please use WBEL-4
:). If not, I just wanted to point out that CentOS-4 might allow you to
install on that platform.

[John Morris]

Post by Johnny Hughes
The RHEL4 kernel doesn't support i586 ... I don't think that John modified
the WBEL4-RC1 boot kernel to support i586 either. (I could be wrong).
If WBEL4 is not going to support i586, you might try CentOS-4, as the boot
kernel for anaconda is i586 and there is i586 support.

Oh thanks for the reminder! I had noticed that issue while spinning an
internal test release on Monday and then went off to give a talk about
wireless in libraries and would have forgot it. Heck, had forgot about
it when replying to a message just a couple of minutes ago.

Boot kernels. I want WBEL4 to be able to use vendor released driver
discs for RHEL4. When it builds the boot media it looks for
kernel-BOOT, then i386, i586 and finally will take i686 if it is the
only thing available. For RHEL4 that is going to be i686 so any driver
discs are going to be built for i686.

So we have a problem. Looks like it is going to be possible to have
Pentium support OR RHEL4 driver compatibility at install time but not
both. Or is there some way out of this paradox I'm just not seeing?

Post by Johnny Hughes
Before anyone complains about CentOS trying to steal WBEL users ... I am
not. If WBEL-4 supports i586 and your are a WBEL user, please use WBEL-4
:). If not, I just wanted to point out that CentOS-4 might allow you to
install on that platform.

Actually it might be THE option for i586 support. Since CentOS does
exist and supports Pentium class hardware it might make more sense for
WBEL to go for driver compatibility. Migration between rebuilds is
pretty simple so nobody gets orphaned without an upgrade path.

Time for a fast debate folks. Survivor time, who gets voted off the
island, Epias or Enterprise hardware? The rebuild process is finally at
a stage where I think all packages (on both arches) are going to build
flawlessly on the pass currently running so it is this decision and
installing Oracle to get tora right that are the only remaining holds.

Assuming of course the compile doesn't hit yet another snag. And of
course I probably should go ahead and roll in the OO.o errata from this
week to avoid THAT hog of a download after every install.

[William Hooper]

John Morris wrote:
[snip]

Post by John Morris
So we have a problem. Looks like it is going to be possible to have
Pentium support OR RHEL4 driver compatibility at install time but not
both. Or is there some way out of this paradox I'm just not seeing?

A small boot.iso for i586 perhaps? It might even give you a chance to
judge interest by seeing how often it is downloaded.

I'd say go with the RHEL4 driver compatibility, especially if CentOS isn't
compatible currently.

[John Morris]

Post by William Hooper
A small boot.iso for i586 perhaps? It might even give you a chance to
judge interest by seeing how often it is downloaded.

Hmm. Fairly critical ordering but it just might be possible. Populate
the tree, run buildinstall to get the release boot.img. Add in the i586
kernel, rebuild rpmdb the hdlists, etc. and spin the .iso images. Then
run buildinstall again and extract that boot.iso.

It is certainly worth a try to see how hard it is. Even if I didn't do
it for all of the respins it would give i586 one last version. It would
mean keeping the patch to get the srpm to emit a i586 package current
for a few years but since Centos is already doing it I could always just
nick theirs. :)

Post by William Hooper
I'd say go with the RHEL4 driver compatibility, especially if CentOS isn't
compatible currently.

They really can't unless they also do something like the above and offer
up a supplemental boot image. If their boot kernel is i686 it won't
boot on an older Epia or a Pentium1 and if it is i586 the modules on
driver discs are not going to insert correctly.

[Steve Phillips]

Post by John Morris

Post by Johnny Hughes
The RHEL4 kernel doesn't support i586 ... I don't think that John modified
the WBEL4-RC1 boot kernel to support i586 either. (I could be wrong).
If WBEL4 is not going to support i586, you might try CentOS-4, as the boot
kernel for anaconda is i586 and there is i586 support.

Oh thanks for the reminder! I had noticed that issue while spinning an
internal test release on Monday and then went off to give a talk about
wireless in libraries and would have forgot it. Heck, had forgot about
it when replying to a message just a couple of minutes ago.
Boot kernels. I want WBEL4 to be able to use vendor released driver
discs for RHEL4. When it builds the boot media it looks for
kernel-BOOT, then i386, i586 and finally will take i686 if it is the
only thing available. For RHEL4 that is going to be i686 so any driver
discs are going to be built for i686.
So we have a problem. Looks like it is going to be possible to have
Pentium support OR RHEL4 driver compatibility at install time but not
both. Or is there some way out of this paradox I'm just not seeing?

Post by Johnny Hughes
Before anyone complains about CentOS trying to steal WBEL users ... I am
not. If WBEL-4 supports i586 and your are a WBEL user, please use WBEL-4
:). If not, I just wanted to point out that CentOS-4 might allow you to
install on that platform.

Actually it might be THE option for i586 support. Since CentOS does
exist and supports Pentium class hardware it might make more sense for
WBEL to go for driver compatibility. Migration between rebuilds is
pretty simple so nobody gets orphaned without an upgrade path.
Time for a fast debate folks. Survivor time, who gets voted off the
island, Epias or Enterprise hardware? The rebuild process is finally at
a stage where I think all packages (on both arches) are going to build
flawlessly on the pass currently running so it is this decision and
installing Oracle to get tora right that are the only remaining holds.
Assuming of course the compile doesn't hit yet another snag. And of
course I probably should go ahead and roll in the OO.o errata from this
week to avoid THAT hog of a download after every install.

Hi John,
Don't really see the need for a debate...

Post by John Morris
From http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/faq.html -

items 2 and 3:

"Why didn't you build all of the packages for the i686/athlon/etc.

Short answer: Because RedHat didn't. WBEL aims to be 100% binary
compatible with RHEL which means no tweaking.

<SNIP>

* Why didn't/won't you include package foo

Short answer: Because RedHat didn't include it.

<SNIP>

Those are the primary reasons I chose to stick with Whitebox. So far
every issue I've ever had was reproducible on RHEL. This means I can
have a discussion about a project, toss WBEL on a server for proof of
concept, and be pretty sure that if the project proceeds to production
on RHEL - it'll behave as expected. Saves me a lot of frustration as
well as a 45-60 day purchase cycle up front. I'm sure there are many
others in the same boat. The only reason that I know of to vary off the
stated path is if it doesn't meet the needs of the library, and as you
pointed out, Centos may fill the need to support additional
hardware/features.

Thanks for all the hard work!
stevep

BTW: Any ETA for WBEL4 (as in days, week, months)?

[John Morris]

Post by Steve Phillips
Don't really see the need for a debate...

Post by John Morris
From http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/faq.html -

others in the same boat. The only reason that I know of to vary off the
stated path is if it doesn't meet the needs of the library, and as you
pointed out, Centos may fill the need to support additional
hardware/features.

Well I know I will be needing to tweak up a version for our Epias. And
if it can be done in a way that doesn't break binary compatibility it
argues for doing it.

Post by Steve Phillips
BTW: Any ETA for WBEL4 (as in days, week, months)?

If the current build pass completes without an error (and I really think
it will this time) the final images could go out next week. All bets
are off if yet another error crops up because I really want to see a
build rebuild itself with zero errors on both arches.

[Johnny Hughes]

Post by John Morris

Post by Johnny Hughes
The RHEL4 kernel doesn't support i586 ... I don't think that John modified
the WBEL4-RC1 boot kernel to support i586 either. (I could be wrong).
If WBEL4 is not going to support i586, you might try CentOS-4, as the boot
kernel for anaconda is i586 and there is i586 support.

Boot kernels. I want WBEL4 to be able to use vendor released driver
discs for RHEL4. When it builds the boot media it looks for
kernel-BOOT, then i386, i586 and finally will take i686 if it is the
only thing available. For RHEL4 that is going to be i686 so any driver
discs are going to be built for i686.
So we have a problem. Looks like it is going to be possible to have
Pentium support OR RHEL4 driver compatibility at install time but not
both. Or is there some way out of this paradox I'm just not seeing?

That is exactly correct :) ... I have been playing with creating a CD-1
that is i586 and one that is i686. boot.iso is too particular about the
rest of the image files (stage2 hard drive image, etc.) to work by
itself ... but I have had a little bit of success in creating separate
CDs.

Post by John Morris

Post by Johnny Hughes
Before anyone complains about CentOS trying to steal WBEL users ... I am
not. If WBEL-4 supports i586 and your are a WBEL user, please use WBEL-4
:). If not, I just wanted to point out that CentOS-4 might allow you to
install on that platform.

Actually it might be THE option for i586 support. Since CentOS does
exist and supports Pentium class hardware it might make more sense for
WBEL to go for driver compatibility. Migration between rebuilds is
pretty simple so nobody gets orphaned without an upgrade path.

The i586 support for CentOS is going to be maintained in some form ...
but it might be as a separate CD-1 in the future.

Post by John Morris
Time for a fast debate folks. Survivor time, who gets voted off the
island, Epias or Enterprise hardware? The rebuild process is finally at
a stage where I think all packages (on both arches) are going to build
flawlessly on the pass currently running so it is this decision and
installing Oracle to get tora right that are the only remaining holds.
Assuming of course the compile doesn't hit yet another snag. And of
course I probably should go ahead and roll in the OO.o errata from this
week to avoid THAT hog of a download after every install.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-devel/attachments/20050429/74437df0/attachment.bin

[John Morris]

Post by Sean Atkinson
I also tried vmlinuz from Debian's kerne-image-2.6.11-1-686 since it's
config file lists a cache shift of 5 which I hoped matched the Ezra.
However that behaves similarly.
The only kernels that successfully boot such as TTYLinux 4.5 and WBEL3's
2.4.21-15.EL BOOT include "CONFIG_M386=y" in their configs.
Will the final WBEL4 release support general 386 class processors, or
require "proper" 686 models instead?

That is a very good question. RH is really discouraging it. For WBEL3
it was a one line .spec tweak, this time will require restoring the
whole i586 config file in the kernel source tree. Centos did it and
they say fixing it isn't that hard. I'm already having to modify the
kernel package anyway so that argues in favor along with knowing that
I'll probably update my inhouse Epia's at some point so I'd be doing it
for internal use at any rate.

The counter argument is i586 support is only going to get harder to
maintain so some point needs to be picked for weaning off of it. My
guess is I'll do it for 4 but by the time of 5 with a bit luck I can get
rid of my Epias in another upgrade cycle and call that an excuse to stop
supporting Pentiums.

[Michael Shapcotte]

Will newer Via chips like 1GHz Nehemiah be recognized as 686 and supported?

[John Morris]

Post by Michael Shapcotte
Will newer Via chips like 1GHz Nehemiah be recognized as 686 and supported?

I don't have one to test on, just 933MHz Ezra boxes here, but I have
seen several references to such machines booting standard i686
kernels. Here is one I'd consider fairly authoritative:

http://www.epiawiki.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=EpiaInstallingGentoo

Hope that helps.

[Michael Shapcotte]

excellent -- thank you

Post by John Morris

Post by Michael Shapcotte
Will newer Via chips like 1GHz Nehemiah be recognized as 686 and supported?

I don't have one to test on, just 933MHz Ezra boxes here, but I have
seen several references to such machines booting standard i686
http://www.epiawiki.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=EpiaInstallingGentoo
Hope that helps.