[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 5/5] bootm: Add the missing PREP stage to bootz and correct image handling

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 01:04:58PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:22:13AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:17:10AM -0500, Robert Nelson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 01:26:11PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > >> In the recent bootm refactor, the PREP stage was missing in
> the
> > > > > bootz
> > > > > > > >> command. This causes unpredictable behaviour.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The use of a local variable means that the reset of
> cmd_bootm.c
> > > > > does not
> > > > > > > >> in fact use the same image structure, so remove this.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Also manually set the OS type to Linux, since this is the
> only
> > > > > possibility
> > > > > > > >> at present, and we need to select the right boot function.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With the whole series applied, I still see a hang at:
> > > > > > > > Kernel image @ 0x80200000 [ 0x000000 - 0x3d44a0 ]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Starting kernel ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perhaps something to do with how my DDR is not at 0x0 ->
> 256MiB
> > > but
> > > > > > > > 0x80000000 -> 256MiB ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom, which board is that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These 5 patches just on top of v2013.07-rc2, the panda (non es)
> > > (board
> > > > > > > file) works, but Wand (device tree) is still locking up for
> me...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Panda (Board file boot)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > load mmc ${mmcdev}:${mmcpart} ${loadaddr} zImage
> > > > > > > run mmcargs
> > > > > > > bootz ${loadaddr}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah-ha!  It's an appended dtb vs not problem now.  I can boot my
> > > > > > beagelbone with with an appended dtb and bootz, but can't with
> > > separate.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, the BOOTM_STATE_FINDOTHER state code isn't working since we
> don't
> > > > > have the rest of the header bits that the code checks for set.
>  I've
> > > > > taken a few stabs at reworking things, but it's not working yet.
> > >  Simon,
> > > > > do you have any ideas here?  I'm starting to wonder if we don't
> need to
> > > > > revert things afterall and sort this out post release.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Yes time is running short. I did post two reverts - I wonder if they
> are
> > > > effective for this problem?
> > > >
> > > > Is the appended dtb with bootz the only problem remaining as far as
> we
> > > > know? If so then perhaps we are close.
> > > >
> > > > I will see if I can get a Beaglebone today or failing that I should
> be
> > > able
> > > > to try bootz with appeneded dtb on another ARM board.
> > >
> > > I've got a fix locally now, and I'm working on cleaning it up further.
> > > The problem is that BOOTM_STATE_FINDOTHER would never work since we
> > > aren't the "right" image types, so passed ramdisk and/or dtb didn't
> > > work.  Another problem was that bootz was never consuming 'bootz', but
> > > this was OK before.  I'll post a patch shortly.
> >
> >
> > OK great, thanks for looking at this.  I wonder if we can collect a set
> of
> > different use cases for bootz as a basis for test cases?
>
> Well, what happens on sandbox when you try and boot a kernel? :)  bootz
> is any of:
> kernel, kernel+ramdisk, kernel+ramdisk+fdt, kernel+fdt.
>

Yes certainly there are limitations, but the test I have there so far does
check that all the data appears in the correct place in memory. That seems
to me most of the battle with bootm.


>
> > > My biggest worry right now is, what might show up broken next?  Anyone
> > > out there easily able to boot a netbsd kernel or something?
> >
> > Yes, I am not really comfortable with this. I will see if I can write
> some
> > sandbox tests for the other image types today and post my results. I
> guess
> > this bootm code has built up over a long time and it is hard to know all
> > the ways it is used.
>
> Important, but I really want to see real-world booting in a case or two.
> Unfortunately I don't have any ARM boards that work out of the box with
> NetBSD.
>

Me neither, unfortunately.

Regards,
Simon


>
> --
> Tom
>