At 1:13 Uhr -0400 18.7.2005, der Mouse wrote:
>So, I recently got a PowerBook 165.  Of course, I went to put NetBSD on
>it.

[...]

>So I told the booter to use serial console, and...it still goes
>catatonic, though slightly more informatively:
>
>System RAM: 12582912 bytes in 3072 pages.
>     Low = 0x0, high = 0xc00000
>Checking for Internal Video get_mapping(): PB/IIvx (0x60?00000).  False start.
>[ preserving 363353 bytes of netbsd a.out symbol table ]
>Copyright (c) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
>    The NetBSD Foundation, Inc.  All rights reserved.
>Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1993
>    The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
>
>NetBSD 1.4.2 (GENERIC) #4: Sat Mar 18 01:16:20 CST 2000
>    fredb@corwin.home:/s/src/sys/arch/mac68k/compile/GENERIC
>Apple Macintosh PowerBook 165  (68030)
>cpu: delay factor 355
>real mem = 12582912
>avail mem = 8388608
>using 179 buffers containing 733184 bytes of memory
>mrg: kernel has no ROM vectors for this machine!
>mainbus0 (root)
>obio0 at mainbus0
>adb0 at obio0 (direct, PowerBook): 2 targets
>aed0 at adb0 addr 0: ADB Event device
>kbd0 at adb0 addr 2: PowerBook keyboard
>ms0 at adb0 addr 3:

Did you touch the mouse (trackball) during boot?

>[...] and it seems that nowadays
>16 megs is considered "tiny" on i386 - a CISCer machine than the 68k -
>so I don't expect -current to even crawl on it, much less run.

I run a IIsi with named, sendmail, thttpd and C News / nnrpd in 17 MBytes
(1.5.4, linked statically). ssh login is not much slower than on sun4c.  ;)

OTOH, anything >= 2.0 is known to have a kernel memory leak and other
interesting issues (like PR 26896). It's probably best to stick with
netbsd-1-6 ;that's when mac68k switched to ELF, so the distribution is
cross-buildable.

>Have I done something stupid here, or is the 165 not really supported
>in 1.4.2 and I'll need something newer,

The

>mrg: kernel has no ROM vectors for this machine!

sounds like limited support. But, to repeat myself: Keep your hands off the
mouse during boot.

>or does this mean my hardware
>is broken (it seems to work fine in System 7), or what?  I'd rather not
>go through the contortions involved in getting a newer distribution
>onto this disk unless there's a reasonable chance it'll work better.

Downloading and booting a 1.6 GENERIC kernel should show you.

	hauke