On 03/20/2015 04:08 PM, Programmingkid wrote:
On Mar 20, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 20/03/15 02:38, Programmingkid wrote:
On Mar 19, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 19.03.15 15:50, Programmingkid wrote:
On Mar 19, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 19.03.2015 um 02:46 schrieb Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com>:
After just pulled for the March 18 patches, I noticed that my Mac OS 10.2 cd no
longer boots.
Is this new? If so, can you bisect it?
Alex
The odd thing is, it only fails to boot if there is not hard drive set. When I add a hard
drive, the boot cd continues booting to the installer. Without the hard drive, and the
boot stops half way and starts saying "still waiting for boot device".
This is the command I used when booting fails:
qemu-system-ppc -cdrom Jaguar.iso -m 512 -boot d -M g3beige -prom-env
boot-args=-v
This does appear to be new. Are you able to reproduce the issue?
I gave up on testing CD-ROM emulation on Mac machines since it's known
bad upstream. Mark has a few RFC patches to fix tit up though, so feel
free to give them a try as well ;)
Ok, I will look at them.
Mark, can I see some of your CD-ROM patches?
Sure, I rebased them fairly recently and posted them both on-list and to
github:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg01699.html
https://github.com/mcayland/qemu/tree/macio
ATB,
Mark.
There has been a lot of changes to QEMU lately, so I'm not sure how well my
tests work. The March 20th patch list broke QEMU, so I used the March 18th one
to test.
I have tried both the patches from the URL above at the same time. They did
allow me to boot my Mac OS 10.0 cd much further than it had before. The patches
also fixed a problem that prevented me from booting a cd without having a hard
drive attached.
reviewed-by: John Arbuckle <programmingk...@gmail.com>
If you feel like the CD rom boot failure is "new", I'd be very
interested to know how recent that failure is.
The macio RFC might help, but if you have the cycles to do a bisect
upstream, I would appreciate that.
(And I will get to reviewing that RFC next week.)
Thanks,
--js