(Cc'ing mailing list and Tom again, thus keep entire previous answer) On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 3:39 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:41 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:31 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It seems Masahiro's patches (don't know yet which one out of two, > > > probably invd one) broke the boot on Intel Edison. > > > > > > Reverting (both for now) helps. > > > > Why both? > > Because I did bisecting by intuition (much faster than usual one). > > > git bisect is the usual way to figure out the culprit. > > Too much work to do this way. > > And since I was about to have my lunch, I didn't continue > investigating. Let me do it now.
OK, as my intuition told me the problematic one is commit 0d67fac29f3187e67f4fd3ef15f73e91be2fad12 Author: Masahiro Yamada <masahi...@kernel.org> Date: Wed Jan 8 20:08:44 2020 +0900 x86: use invd instead of wbinvd in real mode start code Please, revert or fix ASAP before v2020.04 release! ^^^ > > > P.S. I dunno how it has been tested, so, if you have Intel Edison in > > > possession, please, don't forget to test on it. It's not first time > > > the Intel Edison behaviour is broken due to poor testing. > > > > > > I tested my patches on qemu. > > Exactly my point of definition "poor". > It's not first time (and not last) when QEmu sucks. > > > Sorry for the breakage on your board, but I do not > > have Edison board. > > It is not possible to test every board. > > No problem, it's rather to x86 maintainers to have at least one-two > real hardware testing before applying this. > QEMU is completely not enough! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
