Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Info on bootloader/kernel image storage

Expand Messages
  • nrkkflower
    ... on ... Mine is definately different -- completely different sizes.. The stuff in /dev/fl1 is ~1Mb smaller in size. ... running ... Here s the output from
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 13, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, Derek Taubert <taubert@g..
      .> wrote:

      > Does your box have anything in /dev/fl4? It is a bigger flash space
      on
      > mine, but has an identical kernel/initrd stored there.

      Mine is definately different -- completely different sizes.. The stuff
      in /dev/fl1 is ~1Mb smaller in size.

      > The compile date is certainly different, so it looks like you're
      running
      > a new kernel. Have a look at the following:
      >
      > *** /proc/asconf_info ***
      > PRODUCTNAME=HD-HLAN(HIDETADA)
      > VERSION=1.05
      > SUBVERSION=FLASH 1.1
      > PRODUCTID=0x00000003
      > BUILDDATE=2004/5/21 13:41:0
      > BOOTFLAG=OK

      Here's the output from mine :

      PRODUCTNAME=HD-HLAN(HIDETADA)
      VERSION=1.04
      SUBVERSION=FLASH 1.2
      PRODUCTID=0x00000003
      BUILDDATE=2004/10/12 23:25:48
      BOOTFLAG=OK

      > *** /proc/devices ***
      > Character devices:
      > 1 mem
      > 2 pty
      > 3 ttyp
      > 4 ttyS
      > 5 cua
      > 10 misc
      > 21 sg
      > 128 ptm
      > 136 pts
      > 162 raw
      > 180 usb
      >
      > Block devices:
      > 1 ramdisk
      > 3 ide0
      > 7 loop
      > 8 sd
      > 65 sd
      > 66 sd
      > 250 flashd

      Here's my output :

      Character devices:
      1 mem
      2 pty
      3 ttyp
      4 ttyS
      5 cua
      10 misc
      128 ptm
      136 pts
      162 raw
      180 usb

      Block devices:
      1 ramdisk
      3 ide0
      250 flashd

      > *** /proc/filesystems ***
      > nodev rootfs
      > nodev bdev
      > nodev proc
      > nodev sockfs
      > nodev tmpfs
      > nodev shm
      > nodev pipefs
      > ext3
      > ext2
      > nodev ramfs
      > vfat
      > nodev smbfs
      > nodev autofs
      > nodev devpts
      > nodev usbdevfs
      > nodev usbfs
      > ntfs

      And finally here's my output on this one :

      nodev rootfs
      nodev bdev
      nodev proc
      nodev sockfs
      nodev tmpfs
      nodev shm
      nodev pipefs
      nodev binfmt_misc
      ext3
      ext2
      msdos
      vfat
      nodev smbfs
      ntfs
      nodev devpts
      nodev usbdevfs
      nodev usbfs

      > Is the update to fl2 really necessary? Any idea how different the
      code is
      > from the Buffalo distribution?

      I don't know.. I read something that roughly indicated that on one of
      the translated sites.. I just did it to be sure..

      > Do you have any clues about what the write_ng/write_ok bins do to
      the boot
      > process?

      Nope.. I'm not too sure when they take place in the boot process.
    • tad94564
      ... I ... kernel ... re-flashing ... FYI, kernel names are limited in length, and you probably overran it. thomas
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 20, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, "nrkkflower" <rickf@c...>
        wrote:
        > I've beat you to the punch.. I've already re-genned my kernel last
        > night and have somewhat documented it over on the Revogear forums.
        I
        > took a leap of faith that I wouldn't goof up the box and it worked
        > fine.. However I'm not 100% sure I'm using the complete updated
        kernel
        > since I modified the uname string from "sandpoint" to
        > "sandpoint-osxaddict" and after re-genning the kernel and
        re-flashing
        > it, it still says "sandpoint" as in the following :
        >

        FYI, kernel names are limited in length, and you probably overran it.

        thomas
      • Rick Flower
        Actually, the problem stemmed from the fact that the Makefile doesn t bother to re-generate those various header files if they already exist.. In my case, the
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 20, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Actually, the problem stemmed from the fact that the Makefile doesn't
          bother to re-generate those
          various header files if they already exist.. In my case, the original
          ones existed first and it just didn't
          bother to re-gen them.. Once I removed the offending header files, the
          Makefile re-gened the offending
          files and now my kernel version looks like the following :

          HD120:~ [401]> uname -a
          Linux HD120 2.4.17_mvl21-sandpoint-osxaddict #16 Thu Oct 14 21:53:09
          PDT 2004 ppc unknown

          -- Rick

          On Oct 20, 2004, at 9:14 PM, tad94564 wrote:

          >
          >
          > --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, "nrkkflower" <rickf@c...>
          > wrote:
          >> I've beat you to the punch.. I've already re-genned my kernel last
          >> night and have somewhat documented it over on the Revogear forums.
          > I
          >> took a leap of faith that I wouldn't goof up the box and it worked
          >> fine.. However I'm not 100% sure I'm using the complete updated
          > kernel
          >> since I modified the uname string from "sandpoint" to
          >> "sandpoint-osxaddict" and after re-genning the kernel and
          > re-flashing
          >> it, it still says "sandpoint" as in the following :
          >>
          >
          > FYI, kernel names are limited in length, and you probably overran it.
          >
          > thomas
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • tad94564
          ... doesn t ... original ... the ... 21:53:09 ... Then they fixed what used to bite me in the past. :) thanks! thomas
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 21, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LinkStation_General@yahoogroups.com, Rick Flower <rickf@c...>
            wrote:
            > Actually, the problem stemmed from the fact that the Makefile
            doesn't
            > bother to re-generate those
            > various header files if they already exist.. In my case, the
            original
            > ones existed first and it just didn't
            > bother to re-gen them.. Once I removed the offending header files,
            the
            > Makefile re-gened the offending
            > files and now my kernel version looks like the following :
            >
            > HD120:~ [401]> uname -a
            > Linux HD120 2.4.17_mvl21-sandpoint-osxaddict #16 Thu Oct 14
            21:53:09
            > PDT 2004 ppc unknown
            >

            Then they fixed what used to bite me in the past. :)

            thanks!
            thomas
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.