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

[Tom Warren]

Simon,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Warren
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 7:02 PM
> To: 'Stephen 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"
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren at 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
> 

I'm not sure if this was the last thread on this (I was on vacation for a few days), but have you resolved the problem you had with Stephen's new 'fdt: Add new fdt address parsing functions" patch? I'd really like to get this resolved so I can send a PR to TomR.

Thanks,

Tom
--
nvpublic