On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Jeremiah Rothschild <jeremiah at franz.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 05:37:54PM +0000, Gordan Bobic wrote: > > Apologies for taking so long to return to this thread, it took way longer > > than expected to get to the machine and get it up and running again. > > Thanks for the update & apologies as well on my delayed follow-up. > > Last time I wrote the mailing list about my kernel problems, I was > told (by jperrin at centos.org) that my system was not in a supported state > because I was daisy-chaining Tianocore EFI via U-Boot. I was directed to > flash the Tianocore firmware and remove U-Boot from the equation. Although > I > was skeptical of this answer, I finally was able to do this. > > Unfortunately, however, this does not change behavior. I still cannot > successfully boot into any kernels beyond 4.5 unless I use 'acpi=off'. > > I am, interestingly enough, able to run the 4.9.60 kernel that you > supplied. > > So: > > (1) My experience leads me to believe that it is still a possibility that a > kernel related bug exists. > > (2) I am confused as to why your kernel worked. I built > kernel-alt-4.11.0-22.el7a from source and it fails like the others. Were > there any special steps you took in building the rpm's you supplied me? > What config file did you use? It looks like looking at the config diff may shed some light on what the difference might be. > > (3) Is it true that you are able to boot into the (> 4.5) distro-supplied > kernels? Or have you only tried/succeeded with your custom builds? > Unfortunately I cannot confirm that. I haven't used distro supplied kernels since the first week I got the motherboard due to the 64KB default page size. I needed it to be able to run armv5tel and armv7hl docker containers. Gordan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/arm-dev/attachments/20180126/e11e5ff1/attachment-0006.html>