[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
164LX and 2.2.3
- From: Hirsim{ki Mika <mhi alpha cc tut fi>
- To: axp-list redhat com
- Subject: 164LX and 2.2.3
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:06:22 +0200 (EET)
Thanks for all the advice I've received so far!
First about my 2940U2W question:
My MILO is an LX164 MILO (2.0.30) from RH 5.0 and
is currently burnt into the flash rom on board.
I would very much like to upgrade it at least to
a 2.0.35 based MILO, because those would recognize
Adaptec 2940U2W (which seems to be the only realistic
LVD-alternative to me so far; I need to connect
FAST-2 SCSI as well as LVD/SE drives without losing
the Ultra2 and I can't afford any of the dual channel
LVD cards by Symbios or Intraserver).
I also need to burn the new MILO into the flash rom,
because neither AlphaBIOS 5.66 nor SRM do recognize
the 2940U2W. I tried putting fmu.gz and 2.0.35 MILO on
a same floppy and running fmu.gz, but apparently the
fmu.gz contains a MILO binary, since the new flash
gave me the old 2.0.30 MILO. The problem is that I
could't find 2.0.35+ version of the fmu.gz anywhere.
Can I create the fmu.gz somehow by myself from a
2.0.35 MILO?
Then about the kernel boot problem:
My current MILO (the one in the flash rom) does
recognize my current SCSI-card and I haven't had
any problems with it so far. The question still
remains, why does the 2.2.3 kernel, booting from
LX164 MILO, think it is running on an EB164, not
on a LX164 based AlphaPC?
With the "Generic" kernel I meant that in config
phase I set my Alpha type as "Generic", instead
of LX164 or PC164. I have tried booting with an
EB164 kernel, which didn't work (!?). I still
need to try a PC164 option.
I've also been wondering whether the 2.0.30 MILO
could be too old for a 2.2.3 kernel?
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[]