kldload problem with 4.8-RELEASE-p7 on HP DL380
peter.jeremy at alcatel.com.au
Sun Sep 21 19:09:29 PDT 2003
On 2003-Sep-19 09:32:31 -0700, Doug White <dwhite at gumbysoft.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> I have a HP DL380 with a DigiBoard Xem that I'm trying to use with
>> FreeBSD 4.x. I've back-ported the digi device from -CURRENT as a
>> kld but when I try to load it, the system wedges. Running exactly
>> the same kernel on an older Compaq P1850 works. If I don't try to
>> load digi.ko the system runs perfectly.
>Does it not work with the dgb driver?
No, the dgb driver only supports the older ISA DigiBoards.
>Can you try putting the digi in a different slot? From the traceback, its
>sitting around in ataintr after going through intr_mux, so I wonder if
>your backported digi and the ata driver are conflicting.
That looks like it was the problem. IRQ15 was shared between ata1
(unused), bge1 (which I need) and digi0. I used the BIOS to change
the IRQ for the DigiBoard and it seems much happier - it loads now
but I still need to verify that it actually works.
>Also have you tried building your driver into the kernel?
When I first back-ported digi(4) (about 2 years ago), it had problems
with assumptions about the system state and couldn't be built in. I
just checked and it still dies (at least in -STABLE) because it needs
to load firmware and linker_load_file() dies because the filesystem
isn't setup at that point. It's easier to leave it as a kld than
fix all these assumptions.
>It seems to be stuck in a delay loop. Perhaps there's a bug in your
>backport? -current and -stable are pretty different animals from an
It's been running for several years in older Proliants and the older
kernel has the same failure in a DL380. It could be that there's a
bug in the IRQ sharing that didn't bite me before but I think the
general interupt behaviour is OK.
>Also I'm suprised the ethernet on the dl380 isn't driving you nuts since
>its the broken broadcom crap.
So I haven't been imagining that the network performance is less than
spectacular.... Running 100baseTX full-duplex, the throughput
approximates what I would expect from 10baseT (and NFS has fits).
Unfortunately, I didn't have a choice on the hardware. Luckily,
network performance isn't an issue for us - as long as it can manage
>10KB/sec it'll be OK for us.
Thanks for your help.
More information about the freebsd-stable