Running u-boot 2021.04 on Raspberry Pi 4
Hi!
first time poster, long time lurker here. Over at Project EVE https://github.com/lf-edge/eve I've been trying to migrate from our current u-boot v2020.07 + patches:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/tree/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020.... to the latest u-boot 2021.04.
Great news is that most of the patches we dependent on seem to have been pulled upstream. However, this single *chunk* of one patchset wasn't:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
I'm wondering what was the reason for leaving it behind, since without it I don't seem to have functioning USB devices on my Raspberry Pi 4. In fact, adding it back:
https://github.com/rvs/eve/tree/u-boot/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2021.04 (just that one chunk -- 'cuz the reset got upstreamed) seems to solve the issue for me.
Another question I have is that the new u-boot seems to have some kind of a regression that I can't quite debug. The SMBIOS tables that it constructs during EFI boot sequence seem to be broken (see the dmidecode output below). Again, this seems to be a regression compared to v2020.07. Any ideas on what could be wrong or how can I start debugging it would be greatly appreciated (in fact I actually added printf's to write_smbios_table() to see if there's any micalculation going on -- but no -- it seems that all method->write() methods there work as expected and their cumulative output adds up to 209 bytes -- but only 128 are present)
Thanks, Roman.
# dmidecode Getting SMBIOS data from sysfs. SMBIOS 3.0 present. 7 structures occupying 209 bytes. Table at 0x3CB28020. Wrong DMI structures length: bytes announced, only 128 bytes available. Handle 0x0000, DMI type 0, 24 bytes BIOS Information Vendor: U-Boot Version: 2021.04 Release Date: 04/08/2021 ROM Size: 64 kB Characteristics: PCI is supported BIOS is upgradeable Selectable boot is supported I2O boot is supported Targeted content distribution is supported BIOS Revision: 21.4 Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes System Information Manufacturer: Not Specified Product Name: Not Specified Version: Not Specified Serial Number: 100000000ffddf0b UUID: 30303031-3030-3030-3066-666464663062 Wake-up Type: Reserved SKU Number: Not Specified Family: Not Specified Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes Base Board Information Manufacturer: Not Specified Product Name: Not Specified Version: Not Specified Serial Number: Not Specified Asset Tag: Not Specified Features: Board is a hosting board Location In Chassis: Not Specified Chassis Handle: 0x0000 Type: Motherboard Invalid entry length (0). DMI table is broken! Stop.
On 4/8/21 8:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
first time poster, long time lurker here. Over at Project EVE https://github.com/lf-edge/eve I've been trying to migrate from our current u-boot v2020.07 + patches:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/tree/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020.... to the latest u-boot 2021.04.
Great news is that most of the patches we dependent on seem to have been pulled upstream. However, this single *chunk* of one patchset wasn't:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
I'm wondering what was the reason for leaving it behind,
+CC Nicolas
- Get rid of PCI core patch as not needed with correct DT PCI topology
also from the cover letter
This also depends on a DT/bindings patch available on the linux-mailing lists: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@.../msg2205783.html
The merged version of this series is
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-usb/list/?series=310015&state...
Here is the relevant bit for reference/discussion:
&pcie0 { pci@1,0 { #address-cells = <3>; #size-cells = <2>; ranges; reg = <0 0 0 0 0>; usb@1,0 { reg = <0x10000 0 0 0 0>; resets = <&reset RASPBERRYPI_FIRMWARE_RESET_ID_USB>; }; }; };
since without it I don't seem to have functioning USB devices on my Raspberry Pi 4. In fact, adding it back:
https://github.com/rvs/eve/tree/u-boot/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2021.04 (just that one chunk -- 'cuz the reset got upstreamed) seems to solve the issue for me.
Another question I have is that the new u-boot seems to have some kind of a regression that I can't quite debug. The SMBIOS tables that it constructs during EFI boot sequence seem to be broken (see the dmidecode output below). Again, this seems to be a regression compared to v2020.07. Any ideas on what could be wrong or how can I start debugging it would be
You can always bisect it ;)
--Sean
greatly appreciated (in fact I actually added printf's to write_smbios_table() to see if there's any micalculation going on -- but no -- it seems that all method->write() methods there work as expected and their cumulative output adds up to 209 bytes -- but only 128 are present)
Thanks, Roman.
# dmidecode Getting SMBIOS data from sysfs. SMBIOS 3.0 present. 7 structures occupying 209 bytes. Table at 0x3CB28020. Wrong DMI structures length: bytes announced, only 128 bytes available. Handle 0x0000, DMI type 0, 24 bytes BIOS Information Vendor: U-Boot Version: 2021.04 Release Date: 04/08/2021 ROM Size: 64 kB Characteristics: PCI is supported BIOS is upgradeable Selectable boot is supported I2O boot is supported Targeted content distribution is supported BIOS Revision: 21.4 Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes System Information Manufacturer: Not Specified Product Name: Not Specified Version: Not Specified Serial Number: 100000000ffddf0b UUID: 30303031-3030-3030-3066-666464663062 Wake-up Type: Reserved SKU Number: Not Specified Family: Not Specified Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes Base Board Information Manufacturer: Not Specified Product Name: Not Specified Version: Not Specified Serial Number: Not Specified Asset Tag: Not Specified Features: Board is a hosting board Location In Chassis: Not Specified Chassis Handle: 0x0000 Type: Motherboard Invalid entry length (0). DMI table is broken! Stop.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:59 PM Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/21 8:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
first time poster, long time lurker here. Over at Project EVE https://github.com/lf-edge/eve I've been trying to migrate from our current u-boot v2020.07 + patches:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/tree/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
to the latest u-boot 2021.04.
Great news is that most of the patches we dependent on seem to have been pulled upstream. However, this single *chunk* of one patchset wasn't:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
I'm wondering what was the reason for leaving it behind,
+CC Nicolas
- Get rid of PCI core patch as not needed with correct DT PCI topology
also from the cover letter
This also depends on a DT/bindings patch available on the linux-mailing
lists:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@.../msg2205783.html
The merged version of this series is
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-usb/list/?series=310015&state...
Here is the relevant bit for reference/discussion:
&pcie0 { pci@1,0 { #address-cells = <3>; #size-cells = <2>; ranges; reg = <0 0 0 0 0>; usb@1,0 { reg = <0x10000 0 0 0 0>; resets = <&resetRASPBERRYPI_FIRMWARE_RESET_ID_USB>;
}; }; };
Aha! Thank you so much -- this is super helpful!
since without it I don't seem to have functioning USB devices on my Raspberry Pi 4. In fact, adding it back:
https://github.com/rvs/eve/tree/u-boot/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2021.04
(just that one chunk -- 'cuz the reset got upstreamed) seems to solve the issue for me.
Another question I have is that the new u-boot seems to have some kind of a regression that I can't quite debug. The SMBIOS tables that it constructs during EFI boot sequence seem to be broken (see the dmidecode output below). Again, this seems to be a regression compared to v2020.07. Any ideas on what could be wrong or how can I start debugging it would be
You can always bisect it ;)
LOL -- true! I was just hoping someone would recognize the issue perhaps.
Thanks, Roman.
[ Adding Matthias for the SMBIOS part ]
On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 00:00 -0700, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:59 PM Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/21 8:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
first time poster, long time lurker here. Over at Project EVE https://github.com/lf-edge/eve I've been trying to migrate from our current u-boot v2020.07 + patches:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/tree/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020.... to the latest u-boot 2021.04.
Great news is that most of the patches we dependent on seem to have been pulled upstream. However, this single *chunk* of one patchset wasn't:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
I'm wondering what was the reason for leaving it behind,
+CC Nicolas
- Get rid of PCI core patch as not needed with correct DT PCI topology
also from the cover letter
This also depends on a DT/bindings patch available on the linux-mailing lists: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@.../msg2205783.html
The merged version of this series is
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-usb/list/?series=310015&state...
Here is the relevant bit for reference/discussion:
&pcie0 { pci@1,0 { #address-cells = <3>; #size-cells = <2>; ranges;
reg = <0 0 0 0 0>;
usb@1,0 { reg = <0x10000 0 0 0 0>; resets = <&reset RASPBERRYPI_FIRMWARE_RESET_ID_USB>; }; }; };
Yes, instead of using a PCI quirk we settled on a reset controller. All in all it is less hacky. But needs changes in DT.
Aha! Thank you so much -- this is super helpful!
since without it I don't seem to have functioning USB devices on my Raspberry Pi 4. In fact, adding it back:
https://github.com/rvs/eve/tree/u-boot/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2021.04 (just that one chunk -- 'cuz the reset got upstreamed) seems to solve the issue for me.
Another question I have is that the new u-boot seems to have some kind of a regression that I can't quite debug. The SMBIOS tables that it constructs during EFI boot sequence seem to be broken (see the dmidecode output below). Again, this seems to be a regression compared to v2020.07. Any ideas on what could be wrong or how can I start debugging it would be
You can always bisect it ;)
LOL -- true! I was just hoping someone would recognize the issue perhaps.
Thanks, Roman.
On 09/04/2021 10:14, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
[ Adding Matthias for the SMBIOS part ]
On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 00:00 -0700, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:59 PM Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/21 8:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
first time poster, long time lurker here. Over at Project EVE https://github.com/lf-edge/eve I've been trying to migrate from our current u-boot v2020.07 + patches:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/tree/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020.... to the latest u-boot 2021.04.
Great news is that most of the patches we dependent on seem to have been pulled upstream. However, this single *chunk* of one patchset wasn't:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
I'm wondering what was the reason for leaving it behind,
+CC Nicolas
- Get rid of PCI core patch as not needed with correct DT PCI topology
also from the cover letter
This also depends on a DT/bindings patch available on the linux-mailing lists: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@.../msg2205783.html
The merged version of this series is
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-usb/list/?series=310015&state...
Here is the relevant bit for reference/discussion:
&pcie0 { pci@1,0 { #address-cells = <3>; #size-cells = <2>; ranges;
reg = <0 0 0 0 0>;
usb@1,0 { reg = <0x10000 0 0 0 0>; resets = <&reset RASPBERRYPI_FIRMWARE_RESET_ID_USB>; }; }; };
Yes, instead of using a PCI quirk we settled on a reset controller. All in all it is less hacky. But needs changes in DT.
Aha! Thank you so much -- this is super helpful!
since without it I don't seem to have functioning USB devices on my Raspberry Pi 4. In fact, adding it back:
https://github.com/rvs/eve/tree/u-boot/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2021.04 (just that one chunk -- 'cuz the reset got upstreamed) seems to solve the issue for me.
Another question I have is that the new u-boot seems to have some kind of a regression that I can't quite debug. The SMBIOS tables that it constructs during EFI boot sequence seem to be broken (see the dmidecode output below). Again, this seems to be a regression compared to v2020.07. Any ideas on what could be wrong or how can I start debugging it would be
Yes, that's not working right now. I'm working on a fix for the tables: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20210406090435.19357-1-matt...
This will fix the error en dmidecode but the tables will be basically empty. Before that there was some information that helped you to identify that you are running on a RaspberryPi.
A quick fix would be to add that information to the DTS. Like for example done here: https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/arch/arm/dts/rk3328-rock6...
On the long run we want to add a sysinfo driver to read the information for the mailbox driver and use that. But my understanding is that for that we would need to create a SPL for the mailbox driver to provide that info in a shared data structure. It's still on my list for investigation.
Regards, Matthias
You can always bisect it ;)
LOL -- true! I was just hoping someone would recognize the issue perhaps.
Thanks, Roman.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:15 AM Matthias Brugger mbrugger@suse.com wrote:
On 09/04/2021 10:14, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
[ Adding Matthias for the SMBIOS part ]
On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 00:00 -0700, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:59 PM Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/21 8:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
first time poster, long time lurker here. Over at Project EVE https://github.com/lf-edge/eve I've been trying to migrate from our current u-boot v2020.07 + patches:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/tree/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
to the latest u-boot 2021.04.
Great news is that most of the patches we dependent on seem to have been pulled upstream. However, this single *chunk* of one patchset wasn't:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
I'm wondering what was the reason for leaving it behind,
+CC Nicolas
- Get rid of PCI core patch as not needed with correct DT PCI
topology
also from the cover letter
This also depends on a DT/bindings patch available on the
linux-mailing lists:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@.../msg2205783.html
The merged version of this series is
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-usb/list/?series=310015&state...
Here is the relevant bit for reference/discussion:
&pcie0 { pci@1,0 { #address-cells = <3>; #size-cells = <2>; ranges; reg = <0 0 0 0 0>; usb@1,0 { reg = <0x10000 0 0 0 0>; resets = <&resetRASPBERRYPI_FIRMWARE_RESET_ID_USB>;
}; }; };Yes, instead of using a PCI quirk we settled on a reset controller. All
in all
it is less hacky. But needs changes in DT.
Aha! Thank you so much -- this is super helpful!
since without it I don't seem to have functioning USB devices on my Raspberry Pi 4. In fact, adding it back:
https://github.com/rvs/eve/tree/u-boot/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2021.04
(just that one chunk -- 'cuz the reset got upstreamed) seems to solve the issue for me.
Another question I have is that the new u-boot seems to have some kind of a regression that I can't quite debug. The SMBIOS tables that it constructs during EFI boot sequence seem to be broken (see the dmidecode output below). Again, this seems to be a regression compared to v2020.07. Any ideas on what could be wrong or how can I start debugging it would be
Yes, that's not working right now. I'm working on a fix for the tables:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20210406090435.19357-1-matt...
This will fix the error en dmidecode but the tables will be basically empty. Before that there was some information that helped you to identify that you are running on a RaspberryPi.
A quick fix would be to add that information to the DTS. Like for example done here:
https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/arch/arm/dts/rk3328-rock6...
Thanks! Works like a charm:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/rpi/overlays/raspberry...
But yes -- it would be nice to fix the default behaviour. Speaking of tables being empty (once your fix above makes it in) it may also make sense to document it someplace, but I honestly don't know what a good place for that would be ;-)
On the long run we want to add a sysinfo driver to read the information for the mailbox driver and use that. But my understanding is that for that we would need to create a SPL for the mailbox driver to provide that info in a shared data structure. It's still on my list for investigation.
That sounds pretty useful too -- although my usecase is much more limited -- I just need to be able to provide quick DT overlays to reliably identify various HATs on RPi at the SMBIOS level.
Where it gets interesting, of course, are the HATs that provide their OWN DTs via EEPROM I2C.
Thanks, Roman.
On 09/04/2021 20:06, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:15 AM Matthias Brugger mbrugger@suse.com wrote:
On 09/04/2021 10:14, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
[ Adding Matthias for the SMBIOS part ]
On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 00:00 -0700, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:59 PM Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/21 8:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
first time poster, long time lurker here. Over at Project EVE https://github.com/lf-edge/eve I've been trying to migrate from our current u-boot v2020.07 + patches:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/tree/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
to the latest u-boot 2021.04.
Great news is that most of the patches we dependent on seem to have been pulled upstream. However, this single *chunk* of one patchset wasn't:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2020....
I'm wondering what was the reason for leaving it behind,
+CC Nicolas
- Get rid of PCI core patch as not needed with correct DT PCI
topology
also from the cover letter
This also depends on a DT/bindings patch available on the
linux-mailing lists:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@.../msg2205783.html
The merged version of this series is
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-usb/list/?series=310015&state...
Here is the relevant bit for reference/discussion:
&pcie0 { pci@1,0 { #address-cells = <3>; #size-cells = <2>; ranges; reg = <0 0 0 0 0>; usb@1,0 { reg = <0x10000 0 0 0 0>; resets = <&resetRASPBERRYPI_FIRMWARE_RESET_ID_USB>;
}; }; };Yes, instead of using a PCI quirk we settled on a reset controller. All
in all
it is less hacky. But needs changes in DT.
Aha! Thank you so much -- this is super helpful!
since without it I don't seem to have functioning USB devices on my Raspberry Pi 4. In fact, adding it back:
https://github.com/rvs/eve/tree/u-boot/pkg/u-boot/patches/patches-v2021.04
(just that one chunk -- 'cuz the reset got upstreamed) seems to solve the issue for me.
Another question I have is that the new u-boot seems to have some kind of a regression that I can't quite debug. The SMBIOS tables that it constructs during EFI boot sequence seem to be broken (see the dmidecode output below). Again, this seems to be a regression compared to v2020.07. Any ideas on what could be wrong or how can I start debugging it would be
Yes, that's not working right now. I'm working on a fix for the tables:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20210406090435.19357-1-matt...
This will fix the error en dmidecode but the tables will be basically empty. Before that there was some information that helped you to identify that you are running on a RaspberryPi.
A quick fix would be to add that information to the DTS. Like for example done here:
https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/arch/arm/dts/rk3328-rock6...
Thanks! Works like a charm:
https://github.com/lf-edge/eve/blob/master/pkg/u-boot/rpi/overlays/raspberry...
But yes -- it would be nice to fix the default behaviour. Speaking of tables being empty (once your fix above makes it in) it may also make sense to document it someplace, but I honestly don't know what a good place for that would be ;-)
I send patches for the case where U-Boot relies on the embedded device tree, not sure if that's your case: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/user/todo/uboot/?series=238321
Feel free to test and provide feedback :)
On the long run we want to add a sysinfo driver to read the information for the mailbox driver and use that. But my understanding is that for that we would need to create a SPL for the mailbox driver to provide that info in a shared data structure. It's still on my list for investigation.
That sounds pretty useful too -- although my usecase is much more limited -- I just need to be able to provide quick DT overlays to reliably identify various HATs on RPi at the SMBIOS level.
Where it gets interesting, of course, are the HATs that provide their OWN DTs via EEPROM I2C.
Well if we go with the smbios overlay it could add information to that in the HATs overlay. But of course that only works if we have smbios node in the first place.
Regards, Matthias
participants (4)
-
Matthias Brugger -
Nicolas Saenz Julienne -
Roman Shaposhnik -
Sean Anderson