[U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "fdt: Fix fdtdec_get_addr_size() for 64-bit"

[Tom Warren]

> -----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.

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.

Tom
--
nvpublic