<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 9/7/24 10:48 pm, Michael Ellerman wrote:
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:87plrm68a0.fsf@mail.lhotse"><span
style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Thanks.
Which kernel is the bad log from? Just plain rc6 with no patches?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>So, no, the bad log is actually from a patched kernel. I've
attached the diff for clarity.<span
style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:87plrm68a0.fsf@mail.lhotse">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">What happened when you tried the patch from me? I think Christian called
it vmlinux-6.10-17. Did you get any different output?</pre>
</blockquote>
If I have the correct patch this one failed. Yes it was one called
vmlinux-6.10-17. It reported a (failed?) interpret command
returning -1. Internet seems lacking info on OF binary API, but
plenty on user commands. Christian released another after as
vmlinux-6.10-18 with a working patch. Also included.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:87plrm68a0.fsf@mail.lhotse">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Does anything appear before the "hash-mmu" lines? Those are from the
kernel, we'd really like to see the output from firmware which runs
before that.
cheers
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Sorry I managed to cut that off. The dmesg actually does the
same. I've grabbed another log of both patches.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
My regards,
Damien Stewart.
</pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>