[U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available"

[Simon Glass]

Hi Martin,

On 3 June 2014 00:22, Martin Ertsås <martiert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/14 03:43, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 1 June 2014 23:59, Martin Ertsås <martiert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/01/14 18:42, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>> On 30 May 2014 04:33, Martin Ertsås <martiert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to use u-boot as a payload to coreboot. Problem is that when
>>>>> coreboot starts u-boot, it fails with panic("No tick base available");
>>>>>
>>>>> When looking at the backtrace this gives a recursive error, as panic
>>>>> calls __udelay and get_ticks, which again panics. I heard this was
>>>>> because u-boot overwrote the memory location of coreboot, and that there
>>>>> have been some patches going around that fixes this issue, but have not
>>>>> made it upstream. As far as I can tell, chromebook v2 uses these patches
>>>>> to make their stuff boot. Can anyone point me in the right direction for
>>>>> those patches? I have tried finding them myself, but can't seem to find
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>> It probably means that Coreboot is not passing its timing data to
>>>> U-Boot. You need to enable a timestamp option in Coreboot to do this.
>>>>
>>>> You could patch it to remove this panic and just use 0 in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Simon
>>> Thanks. I'll look into the timestamp option. So using 0 as the tick
>>> value should work?
>> Yes, although you won't get boot timing from Coreboot then. One of the
>> engineers favoured a panic() to avoid accidentally dropping the
>> function from Coreboot's build. Perhaps it could be changed to be a
>> default in Coreboot? This is the second time the issue has come up in
>> U-Boot.
>>
>> Also I'd be happy with printing a warning in this case if you want to
>> do a patch.
>>
>> Regards,
>
> Ok. Looked into enabeling it in coreboot though, but couldn't find a way
> to do it with a qemu machine. Guess I'll have to nag the coreboot
> developers a bit :)
>
> In one way it was kind of frustrating, but I do see the reason for
> having it as a panic though. You have probably done something wrong if
> you forgot to enable ticks. I don't feel like I know u-boot well enough
> to make a decision if it should be a panic or a warning though. If you
> would preffer a warning I can make the patch.

I don't have a strong opinion, so if you are happy with it as it is,
that is fine with me. But if not, please send a patch.

Regards,
Simon