headers
Michael Wolfson | 2 May 2002 02:41

new INSTALL notes

Howdy,

I'm mostly done with a major overhaul to the hp300 INSTALL notes.  I still
need to put a little effort into the upgrading section.

Take a look and send me your comments/corrections/etc.  I'd particularly
appreciate if a few of you could actually try to follow the directions -- I
don't have console access to a hp300 anymore to test this stuff out.

The one thing I'm not too sure about is the format of the distribution
files on a tape for the miniroot to be able to load them (i.e. tar the tgz
files or each is a separate file on the tape).

http://www.blobulent.com/~mw/INSTALL.hp300.html.gz

Thanks,
  -- MW
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sageev George | 4 May 2002 03:15
Picon

Installation of 20020415-current snapshot

Hey there:

With all of the great progress that we are
making with the hp300 port, I finally decided
to try installing latest version of NetBSD
that I could get my hands on.  After installing
NetBSD 1.5.2, I wanted to try one of the snapshots,
but I have had no experience with installing
snapshots, so I don't know if it's my inexperience
in this area that's causing my problems, or 
incompatibility with my system configuration.
The main problem that I ran into was trying to
get the miniroot's netbsd to run (the one
located in 20020415-current).  I was able
to netboot, using Sparc running NetBSD as
the rbootd server and the SYS_UBOOT located
in the 20020415-current directory.  However,
when I tried to access the netbsd kernel
located on sd1b (the swap partition to which
I had dumped the gunzipped miniroot.fs using
dd), I got the following output:

>> NetBSD/hp300 Primary Boot, Revision 1.13
>> (gregm <at> mcgarry, Mon Apr 15 08:46:32 NZST 2002)
>> HP 9000/425t SPU
>> Enter "reset" to reset system.
Boot: [[[le0a:]netbsd][-a][-c][-d][-s][-v][-q]] :- sd3b:netbsd
692350+24936+164544 [75424+51665]=0xf86e0
Start  <at>  0xfe803400 [1=0xfe8db4a8-0xf86e0]...
Entry point: 0xfe803400
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gregory McGarry | 4 May 2002 08:37
Picon

Re: Installation of 20020415-current snapshot

> >> NetBSD/hp300 Primary Boot, Revision 1.13
> >> (gregm <at> mcgarry, Mon Apr 15 08:46:32 NZST 2002)
> >> HP 9000/425t SPU
> >> Enter "reset" to reset system.
> Boot: [[[le0a:]netbsd][-a][-c][-d][-s][-v][-q]] :- sd3b:netbsd
> 692350+24936+164544 [75424+51665]=0xf86e0
> Start  <at>  0xfe803400 [1=0xfe8db4a8-0xf86e0]...
> Entry point: 0xfe803400
> 
> I don't know what to do with this.  I'm going to
> try the 20020312-1.5.3_RC1 snapshot next.

I can't see anything obviously wrong.  Perhaps dca0 has been
picked up as the console, in which case DCAREMID0/DCAREMID1
don't mean what they infer.

> WARNING: bad date in battery clock

And another 4xx machine with a busted clock.

Do all the 400-series machines have external frame buffers?

	-- Gregory McGarry <g.mcgarry <at> ieee.org>
Permalink | Reply | 835 comments |
headers
Michael Lorenz | 4 May 2002 11:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Installation of 20020415-current snapshot

Hello,

>> WARNING: bad date in battery clock
>And another 4xx machine with a busted clock.
Or one of the last Y2K bugs - I had the same problem with a 345, replaced the battery, the problem didn't go
away, someone sent me a patch for the 
rtc code, I made a new kernel and everything is fine now.

>Do all the 400-series machines have external frame buffers?
No, some of them came with ordinary DIO-II framebuffers.

have fun
Michael
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bernd Sieker | 4 May 2002 11:43
Picon
Favicon

Re: Installation of 20020415-current snapshot

On 04.05.02, 18:37:42, Gregory McGarry wrote:
> > >> NetBSD/hp300 Primary Boot, Revision 1.13
> > >> (gregm <at> mcgarry, Mon Apr 15 08:46:32 NZST 2002)
> > >> HP 9000/425t SPU
> > >> Enter "reset" to reset system.
> > Boot: [[[le0a:]netbsd][-a][-c][-d][-s][-v][-q]] :- sd3b:netbsd
> > 692350+24936+164544 [75424+51665]=0xf86e0
> > Start  <at>  0xfe803400 [1=0xfe8db4a8-0xf86e0]...
> > Entry point: 0xfe803400
> > 
> > I don't know what to do with this.  I'm going to
> > try the 20020312-1.5.3_RC1 snapshot next.
> 
> I can't see anything obviously wrong.  Perhaps dca0 has been
> picked up as the console, in which case DCAREMID0/DCAREMID1
> don't mean what they infer.
> 
> > WARNING: bad date in battery clock
> 
> And another 4xx machine with a busted clock.
> 
> Do all the 400-series machines have external frame buffers?

Errm. Do _any_ 400-series machines have external framebuffers? I
thought series 400 all had internal DIO-boards as framebuffers, if
any. (Having three series 400 machines myself (400t, 400s, 433t/dl),
all with no or internal framebuffer.)

Speaking of recent advances, do we have MI-SCSI yet? That would be
great, because then I could the 433t as my sane-server. Assuming that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Michael Lorenz | 4 May 2002 12:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: Installation of 20020415-current snapshot

Hi there,

>Errm. Do _any_ 400-series machines have external framebuffers? I
>thought series 400 all had internal DIO-boards as framebuffers, if
>any. (Having three series 400 machines myself (400t, 400s, 433t/dl),
>all with no or internal framebuffer.)
Hmm, the 433 I had the chance to play around with came with a TurboVRX 3D graphics device, an external box with
lots of RAM, an i860 and some 
other stuff inside that connected to the 433 with a DIO-II board and a rather thick ribbon cable. 
Because these beasts were rather expensive there weren't much, so it's unsupported. 
btw. even some supported framebuffers are external ( think gatorbox... )

have fun
Michael
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Bernd Sieker | 4 May 2002 12:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: Installation of 20020415-current snapshot

On 04.05.02, 12:06:23, Michael Lorenz wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> >Errm. Do _any_ 400-series machines have external framebuffers? I
> >thought series 400 all had internal DIO-boards as framebuffers, if
> >any. (Having three series 400 machines myself (400t, 400s, 433t/dl),
> >all with no or internal framebuffer.)
> Hmm, the 433 I had the chance to play around with came with a TurboVRX 3D graphics device, an external box
with lots of RAM, an i860 and some 
> other stuff inside that connected to the 433 with a DIO-II board and a rather thick ribbon cable. 

There were actually 3D graphics accellerators for HP9000 series 400?
Wow. Those must have been _really_ expensive.

> Because these beasts were rather expensive there weren't much, so it's unsupported. 
> btw. even some supported framebuffers are external ( think gatorbox... )

Oh, I didn't know that. I thought they were all internal boards. I
have only 8bit and 1bit internal boards, and I heard there were 24bit
framebuffers, but I've never seen one.

> 
> have fun
> Michael
> 
> 
> 

--

-- 
Bernd Sieker
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Michael Lorenz | 4 May 2002 12:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Installation of 20020415-current snapshot

Hi there,

>There were actually 3D graphics accellerators for HP9000 series 400?
>Wow. Those must have been _really_ expensive.
These beasts were more or less CAD workstations - so there was definitely a market for expensive 3D hardware.

>> Because these beasts were rather expensive there weren't much, so it's unsupported. 
>> btw. even some supported framebuffers are external ( think gatorbox... )
>Oh, I didn't know that. I thought they were all internal boards. I
>have only 8bit and 1bit internal boards, and I heard there were 24bit
>framebuffers, but I've never seen one.
Yea, I only have a 6bit Catseye and a 1bit Topcat. At least an 8bit board would be nice since lots of programs
choke on 8 bits per pixel but only 64 
color cells.

have fun
Michael
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Wolfson | 4 May 2002 19:34

Re: Installation of 20020415-current snapshot

At 12:26 PM +0200 5/4/02, Bernd Sieker wrote:

:)There were actually 3D graphics accellerators for HP9000 series 400?
:)Wow. Those must have been _really_ expensive.

Yes.

:)Oh, I didn't know that. I thought they were all internal boards. I
:)have only 8bit and 1bit internal boards, and I heard there were 24bit
:)framebuffers, but I've never seen one.

They're *big*.  I've run across 98720 and 98710 framebuffers connected to
320s.  Reasonable 3D, but the 2D performance (compared to even a slow
topcat) was abyssmal.  Like Michael Lorenz, my 400s came with a 98705 -- it
straps onto the wide part of the base.

The 98720 had about 6 enormous boards.  The box was the size of a series
800 workstation.  Very spooky inside.

For Series 300 and 400, they didn't make any 24 bpp DIO-II size
framebuffers.  Perhaps one of the 4XXt or 4XXdl models configured with SGC
could use a CRX24 though?

BTW, ISTR the 425e has the framebuffer integrated on the motherboard.

  -- MW
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Wolfson | 4 May 2002 22:05

X11

Howdy,

So, if I understand the situation properly, the X server has been moved out of
the distribution and hasn't been updated since (according to the dates)
NetBSD 1.0.  Ouch.

I assume that xbase.tgz and the like in the distribution are XFree86-based
X11R6.3 clients.  The tarball of the old X stuff includes all the X11R5
clients.
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/arch/hp300/hp300_X11R5.tar.gz

Presumably one doesn't need to install *all* of that stuff.  What exactly
is necessary to get the old X11R5 server running with the current X11R6.3
clients?  Just the static XhpBSD?  Some fonts it requires?  options
COMPAT_10?

In the absence of a more modern X server, it'd be nice if we could package
up just the essential X11R5 stuff so folks don't have to download the whole
20 MB X11R5 distribution just to get a working server.  If someone gave me
a list of the essential files and requirements, I could put that tarball on
the ftp sites.

Thanks,
  -- MW
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |

Gmane