Hi Jeremy, > That is unfortunate. Which revision/how much RAM? Can you paste the > before/after kernel/pci output like:
My RPi4 is a 8GB revision d03114. Here's the pci output before applying your ranges tweak: [ 3.697773] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: host bridge /scb/pcie@7d500000 ranges: [ 3.706020] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: No bus range found for /scb/pcie@7d500000, using [bus 00-ff] [ 3.716271] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: MEM 0x0600000000..0x063fffffff -> 0x00c0000000 [ 3.726229] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: IB MEM 0x0000000000..0x00bfffffff -> 0x0000000000 [ 3.737357] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00 [ 3.743891] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00-ff] [ 3.749530] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x600000000-0x63fffffff] (bus address [0xc0000000-0xffffffff]) And after: [ 3.781758] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: host bridge /scb/pcie@7d500000 ranges: [ 3.789907] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: No bus range found for /scb/pcie@7d500000, using [bus 00-ff] [ 3.800230] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: MEM 0x0600000000..0x0603ffffff -> 0x00f8000000 [ 3.809721] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: IB MEM 0x0000000000..0x00bfffffff -> 0x0000000000 [ 3.828359] brcm-pcie fd500000.pcie: PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00 [ 3.835812] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00-ff] [ 3.845651] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x600000000-0x603ffffff] (bus address [0xf8000000-0xfbffffff]) I tested with the latest binaries and DT from https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware (master), same issue with the USB. Here's the firmware version I'm running (got that from Raspbian), are you using a different/more recent one? $ vcgencmd version Aug 26 2022 14:03:16 Copyright (c) 2012 Broadcom version 102f1e848393c2112206fadffaaf86db04e98326 (clean) (release) (start) > So the first patch makes sense, but I think it should probably be > checking both DT property names (pci0,0 and pci1,0) since we probably > want maximum compatibility with differing DT's the user might swap in, > and the upstream linux change which changes the node from 1,0 to 0,0 is > from august of last year, so not old at all.. Sounds good, I can submit a v2 handling both variants > The second one, I'm less sure about, since the primary thing your > changing (AFAIK) is whether the XHCI BIOS handoff is being checked, and > since EDK2 supports the hand-off and Linux doesn't throw the XHCI bios > failure message I think we actually want to leave that in place. If you > have debugging turned on, the XHCI/LegacyBios ownership control is the > message you see during exit boot services that says > "XhciClearBiosOwnership: called to clear BIOS ownership". I suspect the > kernel patch is yet another case of "UBOOT and/or the pi foundation > firmware is broken so we fixed the kernel" > > Do you see a difference with/without the second patch? Thanks for explaining this. I can't see a difference with/without the second patch. AFAICT the hand-off check seems to execute without issue on Linux. It makes sense to me to drop this second patch since the hand-off is supported by EDK2. Adrien -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#94718): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/94718 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/94002759/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
