Hi Tom,
On 16 September 2015 at 15:46, Tom Warren TWarren@nvidia.com wrote:
Simon,
-----Original Message----- From: Tom Warren Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 7:02 PM To: 'Stephen Warren'; Simon Glass Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Thierry Reding; Tom Rini Subject: RE: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "fdt: Fix fdtdec_get_addr_size() for 64- bit"
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@wwwdotorg.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:44 PM To: Tom Warren; Simon Glass Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Thierry Reding; Tom Rini Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "fdt: Fix fdtdec_get_addr_size() for 64- bit"
On 09/02/2015 01:54 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/02/2015 01:39 PM, Tom Warren wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Warren Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:05 PM To: Tom Warren; Simon Glass Cc: Bin Meng; Thierry Reding; Tom Rini; U-Boot Mailing List Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "fdt: Fix fdtdec_get_addr_size() for 64- bit"
On 09/02/2015 09:52 AM, Tom Warren wrote: > Simon, et al, > >> Simon Glass wrote at Friday, August 14, 2015 3:05 AM: >> I plan to apply this revert to u-boot-x86 (where SPI is >> currently >> broken) and (once it has a bit more testing) also this patch >> which I think makes the change in a safer way: >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/504918/ >> >> At present that patch breaks at least one x86 board and I have >> not dug into it yet. >> >> The revert should not break tegra, according to Stephen. > > Unfortunately, my testing on P2571 with TOT u-boot-tegra (rebased > against TOT u-boot/master this morning) shows that that is not true. > > The revert of the disputed 'fdtdec_get_addr_size' patch _does_ > break Tegra 64-bit (P2571, at least). Nyan-big is OK. With Simon's revert in place, my board just loops on SPL signon, so I assume it's faulting, etc. in CPU init. Note that this is the current state of TOT u-
boot/master.
I'm a bit confused. So far, we don't support SPL on T210 since we assume some other bootloader runs on the boot CPU and starts just the main U-Boot on the main CPU. It sounds like you're testing some local-
only SPL support?
Currently there are a couple of ways to get T210 64-bit U-Boot
loaded/executed. The first is the way I've always done it (during development and today) - use a 32-bit SPL that I built when I first ported 32-bit U-Boot to T210. I've saved away the SPL portion as a binary, and combine it with the current 64-bit T210 U-Boot proper when building my image. It's always worked up to now. What I'm seeing is a failure in the 64-bit CPU U-Boot portion. I just mentioned the looping SPL signon symptom because that's what I see as the indicator of a
broken 64-bit image.
Oh I see; the SPL is only looping because the main U-Boot binary crashes/... and resets the CPU, hence re-executing the SPL. I thought you were referring to a loop purely within SPL.
Now it makes more sense.
The other way is to use your proprietary NV bootloader for the 32-bit
portion (this will become the de facto standard when we release said NV bootloader code as open-source, or a binary first-stage loader 'tool'). I haven't tried that, since my way works and is an easy part of my
workflow.
If you can point me to your boot CPU loader internally, I can try your
method and see if it makes a difference, but I doubt it will.
I sent you an internal email message.
Perhaps you could also try my upstream U-Boot dev branch at:
repo git://github.com/swarren/u-boot.git branch tegra_dev
That has the revert of the original patch in, but also has the following replacement which you'd want to revert (or perhaps best: try with and without it):
c1fd5e1d5586 fdt: add new fdt address parsing functions
I'm sure I tested Simon's revert at the time I said it was OK. I wonder if the revert used to work fine, but something since then fails if the revert is in place? I would try testing this now, but I'm travelling so it's a bit more painful.
I worked out how to remote control my device, and tested the current u-boot- tegra/master (which contains the patch revert this email thread is about) with and without "fdt: add new fdt address parsing
functions"
removed, and it works fine for me.
When you're concatenating SPL+U-Boot+DTB, are you using the DTB from the same source tree as the main U-Boot (likely by getting U-Boot+DTB from u- boot-dtb.bin in that source tree)?
Yes
I'm not sure if this was the last thread on this (I was on vacation for a few days), but have you resolved the problem you had with Stephen's new 'fdt: Add new fdt address parsing functions" patch? I'd really like to get this resolved so I can send a PR to TomR.
Yes I believe the issues are resolved (not with the patch BTW - the only issue with the patch was the #define DEBUG which I removed).
The patch has just been applied to mainline.
Regards, Simon