Hi Jagan,
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 10:42, Jagan Teki jagan@edgeble.ai wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 22:28, Jonas Karlman jonas@kwiboo.se wrote:
Hi Jagan, On 2023-01-26 17:51, Jagan Teki wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 04:17, Jonas Karlman jonas@kwiboo.se wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On 2023-01-25 23:27, Jagan Teki wrote:
This series support Rockchip RK3588. All the device tree files are synced from linux-next with the proper SHA1 mentioned in the commit messages.
Unfortunately, the BL31 from rkbin is not compatible with U-Boot so it is failing to load ATF entry from SPL and hang.
Verified below BL31 versions, bl31-v1.15 bl31-v1.21 bl31-v1.22 bl31-v1.23 bl31-v1.24 bl31-v1.25 bl31-v1.26
Rever-engineered with respect to rockchip u-boot by using the same FIT_GENERATOR being used in Mainline, rockchip u-boot is booting but mainline showing the same issue.
Log:
LPDDR4X, 2112MHz01-00642-g6bdfd31756-dirty (Jan 26 2023 ���3:44:34 +0530) channel[0] BW=16 Col=10 Bk=8 CS0 Row=17 CS1 Row=17 CS=2 Die BW=8 Size=4096MB channel[1] BW=16 Col=10 Bk=8 CS0 Row=17 CS1 Row=17 CS=2 Die BW=8 Size=4096MB channel[2] BW=16 Col=10 Bk=8 CS0 Row=17 CS1 Row=17 CS=2 Die BW=8 Size=4096MB channel[3] BW=16 Col=10 Bk=8 CS0 Row=17 CS1 Row=17 CS=2 Die BW=8 Size=4096MB change to F1: 528MHz change to F2: 1068MHz change to F3: 1560MHz change to F0: 2112MHz out
U-Boot SPL 2023.01-00642-g6bdfd31756-dirty (Jan 26 2023 - 03:44:34 +0530) Trying to boot from MMC1 bl31_entry: atf_entry start << hang >>
Any information on BL31 for RK3588 please share.
I had a similar strange booing issue with RK3568 and mainline U-Boot, turned out to be related to all parts of ATF not being properly loaded into PMU SRAM.
Using my series at [1] I managed to get ATF to be fully loaded into PMU SRAM. Using CONFIG_SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE=y helped me finding out that the segment being loaded ended up corrupted.
The use of 512 bytes alignment of the FIT helped mitigate that issue. Vendor U-Boot use a bounce buffer for all parts that is written into SRAM (anything loaded outside the gd->ram_base to gd->ram_top range).
You can also find newer bl31 at [2], up to version v1.32.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=337891%3E%3E%3E [2] https://gitlab.com/rk3588_linux/rk/rkbin/-/tree/linux-5.10-gen-rkr3.5/bin/rk...
Thanks for the details. I did apply this set on the master. No change in the behavior, used BL31 and ddr from [2] as well as in rkbin/master.
I did some tests on my Radxa ROCK 3 Model B with CONFIG_SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE=y and it looked like it failed to read data into memory, see below.
It also looks like the sdhci compatible is not supported by the driver. Something that may need to be added to driver to properly read data?
DDR V1.09 a930779e06 typ 22/11/21-17:50:56 LPDDR4X, 2112MHz channel[0] BW=16 Col=10 Bk=8 CS0 Row=16 CS1 Row=16 CS=2 Die BW=16 Size=2048MB channel[1] BW=16 Col=10 Bk=8 CS0 Row=16 CS1 Row=16 CS=2 Die BW=16 Size=2048MB channel[2] BW=16 Col=10 Bk=8 CS0 Row=16 CS1 Row=16 CS=2 Die BW=16 Size=2048MB channel[3] BW=16 Col=10 Bk=8 CS0 Row=16 CS1 Row=16 CS=2 Die BW=16 Size=2048MB Manufacturer ID:0x6 CH0 RX Vref:31.7%, TX Vref:21.8%,20.8% CH1 RX Vref:31.7%, TX Vref:21.8%,21.8% CH2 RX Vref:32.7%, TX Vref:22.8%,21.8% CH3 RX Vref:32.7%, TX Vref:21.8%,20.8% change to F1: 528MHz change to F2: 1068MHz change to F3: 1560MHz change to F0: 2112MHz out
U-Boot SPL 2023.01 (Jan 26 2023 - 00:24:53 +0000) Trying to boot from MMC1 ## Checking hash(es) for config config_1 ... OK ## Checking hash(es) for Image atf_1 ... sha256 error! Bad hash value for 'hash' hash node in 'atf_1' image node mmc_load_image_raw_sector: mmc block read error Trying to boot from MMC1 ## Checking hash(es) for config config_1 ... OK ## Checking hash(es) for Image atf_1 ... sha256 error! Bad hash value for 'hash' hash node in 'atf_1' image node
Look like this is something wrong with your patch series or master changes on binman, not with the driver. I have observed the same if I enable CONFIG_SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE.
There are some more changes in dm/master that I'm about to pull in. One of them from Jonas Karlman adds hash nodes so may be involved.
Regards, Simon