On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 at 19:10, Karoly Balogh <charlie%scenergy.dfmk.hu@localhost> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, David Brownlee wrote: > > > > The patch works like this: if opening "console.device" fails, it tries to > > > initialize the "console.device" ROM module using FindResident and > > > InitResident, and then open the device again. For older Kickstarts, the > > > code is practically unchanged, because there the first opening already > > > works. For newer Kickstarts, this works around the initialization issue. > > > > Nice work! > > > > I can definitely get this committed to the NetBSD tree, and pulled up > > into earlier branches. > > Thanks. > > > As you have everything to hand are you able to confirm it works fine > > on 3.1 (and probably 2.05) - or throw up a quick hdf for others to > > look at? > > I tested it with 3.1 (v40.68) as well, it works. Personally, I do not use > these newschool Kickstarts at all. I admit, I had to pirate^Wborrow one to > be able to look at the issue, just out of plain curiosity. :P > > As I wrote the code path doesn't change for older Kickstarts (where > opening console.device "always" succeeds), I do not see why it could cause > a compatibility issue. I agree it absolutely should not affect 3.1 as the code path only changes based on a test which only triggers in 3.2, but there is always the occasional "code moved around some now something-something-something broke because some code omitted setting something and it Just Worked before, but now fails", kernels and boot-blocks a speciality :) > But of course, all tests are welcomed, so be my guest: > http://charlie.amigaspirit.hu/temp/private/netbsd-bb-fixed.hdf.xz > > Note: I did not test this HDF image any further than if it loads the > bootblock successfully. Probably not, but it is what came out as > "miniroot.fs" from some current NetBSD source I pulled from GitHub. But > this behavior is regardless of Kickstart version and my patch. I did not > investigate that part at all. I tested in fs-uae with 2.05, 3.1 and 3.2, and the new boot blocks worked for all, and the old failed in 3.2 (as expected). I think that's good enough to say "Ship it" :) Just committed it to NetBSD -HEAD. Let me get a release build, and test pullups to netbsd-10 and netbsd-9. I would submit a pullup for netbsd-8, but the bootblocks from -8 are also missing the change to boot from a ffsv2 root filesystem, so we'll stick with -10 and -9. Thanks again Looks like things continue to get a little better for NetBSD/amiga :) David