Hi, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi Timothy, > > Timothy Sample <samp...@ngyro.com> skribis: > >> [ 34.338311] SCSI subsystem initialized >> [ 34.478195] Unhandled fault: page domain fault (0x01b) at 0x00000000 >> [ 34.483251] pgd = (ptrval) >> [ 34.485473] [00000000] *pgd=4e48c835, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000 >> [ 34.493074] Internal error: : 1b [#1] SMP ARM > > Is this error the actual problem? > >> [ 34.497643] Modules linked in: libata(+) scsi_mod >> [ 34.506434] CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 5.2.15-gnu #1 >> [ 34.511049] Hardware name: Generic DT based system >> [ 34.523922] PC is at ata_attach_transport+0xd4/0x1fc [libata] >> [ 34.530415] LR is at 0xce4430bc >> [ 34.533789] pc : [<bf05a00c>] lr : [<ce4430bc>] psr: 60000013 >> [ 34.537248] sp : ce105cd0 ip : bf061dac fp : ce105cf4 >> [ 34.539050] r10: 00000000 r9 : bf061ddc r8 : bf061dbc >> [ 34.540417] r7 : bf061dcc r6 : ce4430cc r5 : ce4430dc r4 : ce443000 >> [ 34.544194] r3 : 00000000 r2 : bf0596a8 r1 : 00000124 r0 : bf0661d4 >> [ 34.547445] Flags: nZCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment >> none >> [ 34.549935] Control: 10c5387d Table: 4e00406a DAC: 00000051 >> [ 34.552425] Process init (pid: 1, stack limit = 0x(ptrval)) >> [ 34.555936] Stack: (0xce105cd0 to 0xce106000) >> [ 34.559887] 5cc0: 00000000 00000000 bf06c100 bf06bf00 >> [ 34.564103] 5ce0: bf076000 ffffffff ce105d84 ce105cf8 bf074c3c >> bf059f44 d0821000 ce104000 >> [ 34.568192] 5d00: bf063734 bf063700 bf06c100 bf063780 c0f05dcc >> 60000013 ffffffff bf075000 > > … or is it that shepherd could not be spawned for some reason? I assumed so. Is this the output you would expect if the unhandled fault stuff was just a warning which was followed by Shepherd failing? Is it the “init Not tainted” part that makes it look like Shepherd is having problems? > Could it be that our kernel config for ARMv7 is wrong somehow? I was guessing that it was a problem with the modules (either that we are missing something in the kernel config or we are not including something in the initrd). However, I guess it could also be a change in how we invoke QEMU. I haven’t had a chance to dive into it yet, I was hoping that someone “out there” might know something! :) -- Tim
