|
| What level of what do I have installed? |
 |
Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:21:58 -040 |
I am confused!
First, I am trying to determine why my T60 with eCS 1.2R will boot while
in a Docking Station, but the same system with eCS 2.0 RC2 will not.
[V2.0 gets a TRAP 0008.] Booting eCS 2.0 RC2 non in the Dock is OK.
I have confirmed, at least to my satisfaction, that the problem is with
ACPI/APM, by REMming these three statements:
> PSD=ACPI.PSD /SMP
> BASEDEV=APM.ADD
> RUN=O:\OS2\ACPIDAEMON.EXE
Rebooting 2.0 RC2 in the Dock without these statements boots OK.
I should make some points about the lack of various options on the ACPI.PSD:
1) '/R' causes the system to hang on every shutdown/reboot unless the
power is turned completely off after the shutdown.
2) I've tried '/APIC' and '/VBE' with no change in the resulting TRAP.
3) I've tried removing the '/SMP' and that does not matter either.
4) V1.2R boots and runs just fine with only the '/SMP'.
5) BOTH of these environments have the same Kernel.
6) I tried upgrading ACPI to 3.3, but that results in:
TRAP 000e in OS2KRNL
And, this TRAP occurs both in the Dock and not in the Dock.
FWIW: This whole agnoizing series of tests is completely documented in
the ACPI TRAC as Ticket #37. My last posting of logs, etc., was done
14-Oct. No response in over a week.
The boot messages that have me confused are at the start of the boot...
eCS 1.2R has:
"Power Management for eComStation V1.14"
eCS 2.0 RC2 has:
"Power Management for eComStation V1.12"
The confusion comes from the V1.14 versus V1.12 because:
The ACPI package on eCS 1.2 was installed with:
acpifu-20070809.wpi
While the package for eCS 2.0 was installed with:
acpifu-20070914.wpi
Where do the messages above come from?
Theoretically at least, it would be expected that the Version of the
acpifu-20070914.wpi package would be higher than the package installed
with acpifu-20070809.wpi. But, the reverse is true.
To confuse things even more, I tried to use BLDLEVEL to sort out the
levels. There is NO Version 1.12 nor a Version 1.14 reported by
BLDLEVEL. OTOH, there is a 1.15 and a 1.17... %-?
To document what the BLDLEVEL reports for the two install packages for
the three files that I REM to allow the 2.0 system to boot, I did:
1) A DIR of the file in question.
2) A BLDLEVEL of the same file.
The results of these commands for the six files is pasted below. Can
anyone tell me what is really installed? And, if anyone has any ideas
about how to avoid the TRAP-0008, that would be even better.
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> [C:\]dir c:\os2\AcpiDaemon.exe
> Directory of C:\os2
> 8-07-07 2:22a 56,227 61 a--- AcpiDaemon.exe
>
> [C:\]bldlevel c:\os2\AcpiDaemon.exe
> Build Level Display Facility Version 6.12.675 Sep 25 2001
> (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1993-2001
> Signature: @#eCoSoft:1.15#@ACPI APM. (c) Pavel Shtemenko 2006-2007
> Vendor: eCoSoft
> Revision: 1.15
> File Version: 1.15
> Description: ACPI APM. (c) Pavel Shtemenko 2006-2007
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> [C:\]dir o:\os2\AcpiDaemon.exe
> Directory of O:\os2
> 9-14-07 12:57p 56,191 0 a--- AcpiDaemon.exe
>
> [C:\]bldlevel o:\os2\AcpiDaemon.exe
> Build Level Display Facility Version 6.12.675 Sep 25 2001
> (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1993-2001
> Signature: @#eCoSoft:1.17#@ACPI APM. (c) Pavel Shtemenko 2006-2007
> Vendor: eCoSoft
> Revision: 1.17
> File Version: 1.17
> Description: ACPI APM. (c) Pavel Shtemenko 2006-2007
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> [C:\]dir o:\os2\boot\Acpi.psd
> Directory of O:\os2\boot
> 9-14-07 12:57p 244,943 0 a--- acpi.psd
>
> [C:\]bldlevel o:\os2\boot\Acpi.psd
> Build Level Display Facility Version 6.12.675 Sep 25 2001
> (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1993-2001
> Signature: @#netlabs dot org:3.2#@ACPI core PSD Driver. (c)
netlabs.org 2005-2007
> Vendor: netlabs dot org
> Revision: 3.02
> File Version: 3.2
> Description: ACPI core PSD Driver. (c) netlabs.org 2005-2007
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> [C:\]dir c:\os2\boot\Acpi.psd
> Directory of C:\os2\boot
> 8-07-07 2:21a 244,000 54 a--- acpi.psd
>
> [C:\]bldlevel c:\os2\boot\Acpi.psd
> Build Level Display Facility Version 6.12.675 Sep 25 2001
> (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1993-2001
> Signature: @#netlabs dot org:3.00#@ACPI core PSD Driver. (c)
netlabs.org 2005-2007
> Vendor: netlabs dot org
> Revision: 3.00
> File Version: 3.0
> Description: ACPI core PSD Driver. (c) netlabs.org 2005-2007
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> [C:\]dir c:\os2\boot\apm.add
> Directory of C:\os2\boot
> 8-07-07 2:22a 11,825 54 a--- apm.add
>
> [C:\]bldlevel c:\os2\boot\apm.add
> Build Level Display Facility Version 6.12.675 Sep 25 2001
> (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1993-2001
> Signature: @#eCoSoft:1.15#@ACPI APM. (c) Pavel Shtemenko 2006-2007
> Vendor: eCoSoft
> Revision: 1.15
> File Version: 1.15
> Description: ACPI APM. (c) Pavel Shtemenko 2006-2007
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> [C:\]dir o:\os2\boot\apm.add
> Directory of O:\os2\boot
> 9-14-07 12:57p 12,066 0 a--- apm.add
>
> [C:\]bldlevel o:\os2\boot\apm.add
> Build Level Display Facility Version 6.12.675 Sep 25 2001
> (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1993-2001
> Signature: @#eCoSoft:1.17#@ACPI APM. (c) Pavel Shtemenko 2006-2007
> Vendor: eCoSoft
> Revision: 1.17
> File Version: 1.17
> Description: ACPI APM. (c) Pavel Shtemenko 2006-2007
|
| Post Reply
|
| Re: What level of what do I have installed? |
 |
Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:48:24 -040 |
Carl,
Do you use IRC? If yes you should sign on to the netlabs IRC channel and
work with Pasha to fix.
|
| Post Reply
|
| Re: What level of what do I have installed? |
 |
Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:43:28 -040 |
On 10/27/07 08:48 am, Michael Greene wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Do you use IRC? If yes you should sign on to the netlabs IRC channel and
> work with Pasha to fix.
I have an ongoing open ticket on the ACPI TRAC [#37] that has not had a
response for a couple of weeks. I assumed Pasha is very busy and was
trying to avoid raising another issue there.
|
| Post Reply
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|