> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swar...@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
-- nvpublic _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
