> Makes me wonder why my PIIX3 (i430HX) Tyan Tomcat IVD has never had a
> problem with an ISA SoundBlaster AWE32 even with Passive Release enabled
> and such devices as PCI TV cards, PCI Ethernet controllers, and ISA modems
> in it. I've burned CD's on an IDE HP CD-Writer+ (hdb) from an IBM hard
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Leigh Orf wrote:
>I hesitate to declare victory just yet, but I think my problem is solved
>(over a half hour of testing and no lockup). In reading the pdf docs on
>the motherboard, by chance I found the word "concurrency" here:
Makes me wonder why my PIIX3 (i430HX) Tyan
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, Leigh Orf wrote:
I hesitate to declare victory just yet, but I think my problem is solved
(over a half hour of testing and no lockup). In reading the pdf docs on
the motherboard, by chance I found the word "concurrency" here:
Makes me wonder why my PIIX3 (i430HX) Tyan
Makes me wonder why my PIIX3 (i430HX) Tyan Tomcat IVD has never had a
problem with an ISA SoundBlaster AWE32 even with Passive Release enabled
and such devices as PCI TV cards, PCI Ethernet controllers, and ISA modems
in it. I've burned CD's on an IDE HP CD-Writer+ (hdb) from an IBM hard
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 01:31:31AM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
> the motherboard, by chance I found the word "concurrency" here:
>
> Passive Release (Enabled)
>
> This is a mechanism that allows concurrency of ISA/EISA
> cycles and CPU-to-PCI cycles. When this feature is enabled,
>
I hesitate to declare victory just yet, but I think my problem is solved
(over a half hour of testing and no lockup). In reading the pdf docs on
the motherboard, by chance I found the word "concurrency" here:
Passive Release (Enabled)
This is a mechanism that allows concurrency of
OK, after finally getting my bits flipped correctly, I tested it again,
and it hung again. AIEE.
Now, a sanity check. I'm doing this with a kernel which is configured
with CONFIG_PCI_QUIRKS=y and CONFIG_PCI_OPTIMIZE=y. Should it matter?
Should I only be trying this stuff with those configs
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 06:30:37AM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> So do you wish to respond with an example that shows exactly
> how to set a bit?
>
> Miles
I already did before I sent this mail, but it show up later in the mailing
list. Got stuck in a pipe somewhere, probably...
cc//F
--
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 09:33:04PM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
>
> Oops...
>
> I tried your script and it choked on the line following your comment
> "clear bits 0, 1, and 3" with the following:
>
> ./frank.sh: 08: value too great for base (error token is "08")
>
> Just to clarify my byte/bit
So do you wish to respond with an example that shows exactly
how to set a bit?
Miles
Frank de Lange wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
> >
> > Tried that. At least I think I did. Still hung.
>
> Your tweaking BYTES, not BITS here...
>
> >
Oops...
I tried your script and it choked on the line following your comment
"clear bits 0, 1, and 3" with the following:
./frank.sh: 08: value too great for base (error token is "08")
Just to clarify my byte/bit problem, if this is before...
50: 08 00 81 14 02 00 40 01 2b 10 55 11 01 00 11
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
>
> Tried that. At least I think I did. Still hung.
Your tweaking BYTES, not BITS here...
> home[1008]:/home/orf/lockup% sudo setpci -s 0:0.0 50=0
> home[1008]:/home/orf/lockup% sudo setpci -s 0:0.0 51=0 /* unnecessary */
>
Alan Cox wrote:
| What you need to do is to clear bits 0, 1 and 3 of register
| 0x50 of the 430TX chip. lspci can I think do that if you
| figure out the right magic.
|
| Alan
Tried that. At least I think I did. Still hung.
Before tweaking:
home[1008]:/home/orf/lockup% sudo lspci
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 05:14:41PM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
> Can anyone help? I seem to be very close to finding a solution but not
> quite there yet.
If you can boot your system without hitting this problem (shouldn't be a
problem in your case...), you can also use the setpci tool to change
> > { PCI_VENDOR_ID_VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_82C596_0, quirk_isa_dma_hangs, 0x00 },
> > + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82437, quirk_isa_dma_hangs, 0x00 },
> > };
>
> I rebuilt the kernel, and it still locked up faithfully as before under
> the same conditions.
Thats kind of a half
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 05:14:41PM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
> I tried what he did, adding the line with the + in
> /usr/src/linux/drivers/pci/quirks.c, but changing the second argument to
> PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82430 since that describes my board:
>
> >From his post (a link to the full patch is
Alan Cox wrote:
| > I never get this problem by only burning a CD or only
| > playing music through /dev/dsp, both have to be occuring
| > simultaneously for this to happen, and those simultaneous
| > events appear to be completely sufficien= t for the lockup
| > to occur. I can
> I never get this problem by only burning a CD or only playing music
> through /dev/dsp, both have to be occuring simultaneously for this to
> happen, and those simultaneous events appear to be completely sufficien=
> t
> for the lockup to occur. I can sometimes get away with playing music
I'm reporting a problem that has plagued me for many kernels. The
quick summary: If I am burning a CD-R using cdrecord (my burner is
an HP 8100i, internal IDE, so I'm using the ide-scsi module) while
playing music through /dev/dsp (soundcard is a SoundBlaster AWE64), my
machine will lock solid
I'm reporting a problem that has plagued me for many kernels. The
quick summary: If I am burning a CD-R using cdrecord (my burner is
an HP 8100i, internal IDE, so I'm using the ide-scsi module) while
playing music through /dev/dsp (soundcard is a SoundBlaster AWE64), my
machine will lock solid
I never get this problem by only burning a CD or only playing music
through /dev/dsp, both have to be occuring simultaneously for this to
happen, and those simultaneous events appear to be completely sufficien=
t
for the lockup to occur. I can sometimes get away with playing music
Sounds
Alan Cox wrote:
|I never get this problem by only burning a CD or only
|playing music through /dev/dsp, both have to be occuring
|simultaneously for this to happen, and those simultaneous
|events appear to be completely sufficien= t for the lockup
|to occur. I can sometimes
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 05:14:41PM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
I tried what he did, adding the line with the + in
/usr/src/linux/drivers/pci/quirks.c, but changing the second argument to
PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82430 since that describes my board:
From his post (a link to the full patch is above):
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 05:14:41PM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
Can anyone help? I seem to be very close to finding a solution but not
quite there yet.
If you can boot your system without hitting this problem (shouldn't be a
problem in your case...), you can also use the setpci tool to change these
Alan Cox wrote:
| What you need to do is to clear bits 0, 1 and 3 of register
| 0x50 of the 430TX chip. lspci can I think do that if you
| figure out the right magic.
|
| Alan
Tried that. At least I think I did. Still hung.
Before tweaking:
home[1008]:/home/orf/lockup% sudo lspci
Oops...
I tried your script and it choked on the line following your comment
"clear bits 0, 1, and 3" with the following:
./frank.sh: 08: value too great for base (error token is "08")
Just to clarify my byte/bit problem, if this is before...
50: 08 00 81 14 02 00 40 01 2b 10 55 11 01 00 11
So do you wish to respond with an example that shows exactly
how to set a bit?
Miles
Frank de Lange wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
Tried that. At least I think I did. Still hung.
Your tweaking BYTES, not BITS here...
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 06:30:37AM -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
So do you wish to respond with an example that shows exactly
how to set a bit?
Miles
I already did before I sent this mail, but it show up later in the mailing
list. Got stuck in a pipe somewhere, probably...
cc//F
--
I hesitate to declare victory just yet, but I think my problem is solved
(over a half hour of testing and no lockup). In reading the pdf docs on
the motherboard, by chance I found the word "concurrency" here:
Passive Release (Enabled)
This is a mechanism that allows concurrency of
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 01:31:31AM -0400, Leigh Orf wrote:
the motherboard, by chance I found the word "concurrency" here:
Passive Release (Enabled)
This is a mechanism that allows concurrency of ISA/EISA
cycles and CPU-to-PCI cycles. When this feature is enabled,
the TXC
30 matches
Mail list logo
