[U-Boot] Commit 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke mpc85xx
Simon,
I didn't notice until today the commit 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke at least T4240QDS. I have narrowed down to these two lines in common/board_r.c
initr_barrier, initr_malloc,
If I move these two lines below this part
#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_LOCK) && defined(CONFIG_E500) initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, #endif
U-boot boots OK on T4240QDS (I can see the prompt). But if I move them anywhere above this initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, it hangs the core when initializing PCI. It may break other mpc85xx platforms but I didn't have time to check more today. I haven't figured out why you have to move these two lines up. Please take a close look.
Thanks,
York
Hi York,
On 30 September 2014 22:06, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:
Simon,
I didn't notice until today the commit 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke at least T4240QDS. I have narrowed down to these two lines in common/board_r.c
initr_barrier, initr_malloc,
If I move these two lines below this part
#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_LOCK) && defined(CONFIG_E500) initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, #endif
U-boot boots OK on T4240QDS (I can see the prompt). But if I move them anywhere above this initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, it hangs the core when initializing PCI. It may break other mpc85xx platforms but I didn't have time to check more today. I haven't figured out why you have to move these two lines up. Please take a close look.
I could adjust this so that the ordering changes only when driver model is used.
This would be a case of putting '#ifdef CONFIG_DM' around the first section, then repeating it later with '#ifndef CONFIG_DM'. You can see that I did this for stdio out of an abundance of caution.
However, in the interests of supporting driver model on these platforms I wonder if it might be possible to move the cache logic earlier. I suspect that the unlock/invalidate should happen before post-relocation RAM is used.
Please take a look and let me know if that might be possible. Otherwise we'll have to go with the fallback.
BTW I don't have any of these boards. If there is one that is readily and cheaply available, or if you have an old one you can send me, I'd be happy to test on this and take a closer look at driver model support.
Regards, Simon
On 10/01/2014 08:11 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi York,
On 30 September 2014 22:06, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:
Simon,
I didn't notice until today the commit 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke at least T4240QDS. I have narrowed down to these two lines in common/board_r.c
initr_barrier, initr_malloc,
If I move these two lines below this part
#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_LOCK) && defined(CONFIG_E500) initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, #endif
U-boot boots OK on T4240QDS (I can see the prompt). But if I move them anywhere above this initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, it hangs the core when initializing PCI. It may break other mpc85xx platforms but I didn't have time to check more today. I haven't figured out why you have to move these two lines up. Please take a close look.
I could adjust this so that the ordering changes only when driver model is used.
This would be a case of putting '#ifdef CONFIG_DM' around the first section, then repeating it later with '#ifndef CONFIG_DM'. You can see that I did this for stdio out of an abundance of caution.
However, in the interests of supporting driver model on these platforms I wonder if it might be possible to move the cache logic earlier. I suspect that the unlock/invalidate should happen before post-relocation RAM is used.
Please take a look and let me know if that might be possible. Otherwise we'll have to go with the fallback.
I can change init sequence as far as I put initr_unlock_ram_in_cache before initr_malloc, T4240QDS still boots.
I examine the code but don't understand why I have to do so. P4080DS doesn't suffer this issue. I am going to seek some help from Scott and other in-house experts.
BTW I don't have any of these boards. If there is one that is readily and cheaply available, or if you have an old one you can send me, I'd be happy to test on this and take a closer look at driver model support.
I checked but we don't have surplus. This board is relatively new and it sells for $4000. I will keep an eye on it.
York
Hi York,
On 1 October 2014 10:27, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:
On 10/01/2014 08:11 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi York,
On 30 September 2014 22:06, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:
Simon,
I didn't notice until today the commit 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke at least T4240QDS. I have narrowed down to these two lines in common/board_r.c
initr_barrier, initr_malloc,
If I move these two lines below this part
#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_LOCK) && defined(CONFIG_E500) initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, #endif
U-boot boots OK on T4240QDS (I can see the prompt). But if I move them anywhere above this initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, it hangs the core when initializing PCI. It may break other mpc85xx platforms but I didn't have time to check more today. I haven't figured out why you have to move
these
two lines up. Please take a close look.
I could adjust this so that the ordering changes only when driver model
is used.
This would be a case of putting '#ifdef CONFIG_DM' around the first section, then repeating it later with '#ifndef CONFIG_DM'. You can see that I did this for stdio out of an abundance of caution.
However, in the interests of supporting driver model on these platforms I wonder if it might be possible to move the cache logic earlier. I suspect that the unlock/invalidate should happen before post-relocation RAM is used.
Please take a look and let me know if that might be possible. Otherwise we'll have to go with the fallback.
I can change init sequence as far as I put initr_unlock_ram_in_cache before initr_malloc, T4240QDS still boots.
I examine the code but don't understand why I have to do so. P4080DS doesn't suffer this issue. I am going to seek some help from Scott and other in-house experts.
BTW I don't have any of these boards. If there is one that is readily and cheaply available, or if you have an old one you can send me, I'd be happy to test on this and take a closer look at driver model support.
I checked but we don't have surplus. This board is relatively new and it sells for $4000. I will keep an eye on it.
Gosh. Is there something else relatively common in the PPC world that sells for $100-200?
Regards, Simon
Hi York,
On 1 October 2014 10:52, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:
On 10/01/2014 09:37 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Gosh. Is there something else relatively common in the PPC world that sells for $100-200?
Unlikely. This is high end SoC.
Well is there is some PPC board that is supported by U-Boot, relatively recent? Not high-end?
Regards, Simon
On 10/01/2014 11:01 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi York,
On 1 October 2014 10:52, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:
On 10/01/2014 09:37 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Gosh. Is there something else relatively common in the PPC world that sells for $100-200?
Unlikely. This is high end SoC.
Well is there is some PPC board that is supported by U-Boot, relatively recent? Not high-end?
The most recent T1040RDB costs about $1250 according to searching online. $100-$200 is not the range for recent mpc85xx boards.
York
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 09:27 -0700, York Sun wrote:
On 10/01/2014 08:11 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi York,
On 30 September 2014 22:06, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:
Simon,
I didn't notice until today the commit 294b91a5817147d4b7f47be2ac69bac2a1f26491 broke at least T4240QDS. I have narrowed down to these two lines in common/board_r.c
initr_barrier, initr_malloc,
If I move these two lines below this part
#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_INIT_RAM_LOCK) && defined(CONFIG_E500) initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, #endif
U-boot boots OK on T4240QDS (I can see the prompt). But if I move them anywhere above this initr_unlock_ram_in_cache, it hangs the core when initializing PCI. It may break other mpc85xx platforms but I didn't have time to check more today. I haven't figured out why you have to move these two lines up. Please take a close look.
I could adjust this so that the ordering changes only when driver model is used.
This would be a case of putting '#ifdef CONFIG_DM' around the first section, then repeating it later with '#ifndef CONFIG_DM'. You can see that I did this for stdio out of an abundance of caution.
However, in the interests of supporting driver model on these platforms I wonder if it might be possible to move the cache logic earlier. I suspect that the unlock/invalidate should happen before post-relocation RAM is used.
Please take a look and let me know if that might be possible. Otherwise we'll have to go with the fallback.
I can change init sequence as far as I put initr_unlock_ram_in_cache before initr_malloc, T4240QDS still boots.
Yes, we shouldn't have any reason to keep the cache locked that long.
I examine the code but don't understand why I have to do so. P4080DS doesn't suffer this issue. I am going to seek some help from Scott and other in-house experts.
My guess is that it has to do with the way caches work on e6500. We try to lock lines in L1, but L1 can't hold dirty lines, so perhaps the hang comes when the DDR activity evicts the dirty lines from L2 (where they weren't locked).
-Scott
On 10/01/2014 07:15 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
I can change init sequence as far as I put initr_unlock_ram_in_cache before initr_malloc, T4240QDS still boots.
Yes, we shouldn't have any reason to keep the cache locked that long.
I examine the code but don't understand why I have to do so. P4080DS doesn't suffer this issue. I am going to seek some help from Scott and other in-house experts.
My guess is that it has to do with the way caches work on e6500. We try to lock lines in L1, but L1 can't hold dirty lines, so perhaps the hang comes when the DDR activity evicts the dirty lines from L2 (where they weren't locked).
Scott,
Thanks for looking into this. I can propose a fix, but first I will have to do a thorough test on all varieties of 85xx board we have.
York
participants (3)
-
Scott Wood -
Simon Glass -
York Sun