[U-Boot] [BUG] U-Boot hangs on fatload, commit ee88eacbdd840199a3dec707234579fb15ddd46a
Heinrich Schuchardt
xypron.glpk at gmx.de
Sat Nov 16 10:11:41 UTC 2019
Hello Stefan,
Gray reporting this bug unfortunately did not provide enough information
to analyze his issue.
Are you aware of any restrictions of the Kirkwood 88F6281 SoC concerning
unaligned access after enabling the unaligned flag?
Do you have access to a device with a Kirkwood processor (e.g. Sheevaplug)?
One possible solution would be to let CONFIG_EFI_LOADER depend on
CONFIG_KIRKWOOD=n. This would concern 36 devices.
Best regards
Heinrich
On 11/13/19 8:07 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 11/12/19 11:55 PM, Gray Remlin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 19:50, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/11/19 6:14 PM, Gray Remlin wrote:
>> >
>> > This content is getting very convoluted, if appropriate feel
>> free to
>> > crop it.
>> > New point raised at very bottom.
>> >
>> > On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 08:41, Heinrich Schuchardt
>> <xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 11/9/19 10:31 PM, Gray Remlin wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 20:50, Heinrich Schuchardt
>> > <xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>
>> > > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 11/9/19 8:42 PM, Gray Remlin wrote:
>> > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 18:40, Heinrich Schuchardt
>> > > <xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>
>> > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>>
>> > > > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>
>> > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On 11/9/19 6:08 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> > > > > On 11/9/19 4:11 PM, Gray Remlin wrote:
>> > > > >> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 20:08, Heinrich
>> Schuchardt
>> > > > <xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>
>> > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>>
>> > > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>
>> > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>>>
>> > > > >> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>>
>> > > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>
>> > <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>> <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk at gmx.de>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On 11/8/19 7:32 PM, Gray Remlin wrote:
>> > > > >> > Please excuse the noise. I would
>> like to file a
>> > > bug report
>> > > > >> against the
>> > > > >> > above commit, a quick search of
>> www.denx.de <http://www.denx.de>
>> > <http://www.denx.de>
>> > > <http://www.denx.de>
>> > > > <http://www.denx.de> <http://www.denx.de>
>> > > > >> <http://www.denx.de> did not
>> > > > >> > reveal how I should proceed. Please
>> point me in
>> > > the right
>> > > > >> direction.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Issue:
>> > > > >> > U-Boot hangs (i.e. during boot)
>> whenever
>> > the command
>> > > > 'fatload' is
>> > > > >> used.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Details:
>> > > > >> > U-Boot 2019.10 compiled with either
>> > > dreamplug_defconfig or
>> > > > >> > guruplug_defconfig.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > After the commit do_load() now
>> additionally
>> > calls
>> > > > >> efi_set_bootdev()
>> > > > >> > which was moved out of
>> do_load_wrapper()
>> > which is
>> > > only called
>> > > > >> by the
>> > > > >> > 'load' command.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Reverting the commit fixes this
>> issue for me.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Dear Gray,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> thanks for reporting the issue with
>> commit
>> > > > >> fs: do_load: pass device path for efi
>> payload
>> > > > >> ee88eacbdd840199a3dec707234579fb15ddd46a
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Is it only the fatload command that
>> fails on your
>> > > device or
>> > > > also the
>> > > > >> load command?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> There is no bug tracker for U-Boot. So
>> sending
>> > a mail
>> > > to the
>> > > > U-Boot
>> > > > >> mailing list, the patch author, and the
>> > maintainer is the
>> > > > best way to
>> > > > >> inform the developers about bugs.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Best regards
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Heinrich
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Distribution and version of GCC:
>> >
>> > > > >> Additional information:
>> > > > >> cross-compiler
>> > > gcc-linaro-7.4.1-2019.02-x86_64_arm-linux-gnueabi
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> The U-Boot environment being used is the
>> default
>> > obtained by
>> > > > >> compiling U-Boot
>> 2020.01-rc1-00100-gee93ef0c4b as
>> > > > dreamplug_defconfig
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> => printenv
>> > > > >> baudrate=115200
>> > > > >> bootcmd=setenv ethact egiga0;
>> ${x_bootcmd_ethernet};
>> > > setenv ethact
>> > > > >> egiga1; ${x_bootcmd_ethernet};
>> ${x_bootcmd_usb};
>> > > > ${x_bootcmd_kernel};
>> > > > >> setenv bootargs ${x_bootargs}
>> ${x_bootargs_root};
>> > bootm
>> > > 0x6400000;
>> > > > >> bootdelay=3
>> > > > >> ethact=egiga0
>> > > > >> fdtcontroladdr=1fb8e7c8
>> > > > >> stderr=serial
>> > > > >> stdin=serial
>> > > > >> stdout=serial
>> > > > >> x_bootargs=console=ttyS0,115200
>> > > > >> x_bootargs_root=root=/dev/sda2 rootdelay=10
>> > > > >> x_bootcmd_ethernet=ping 192.168.2.1
>> > > > >> x_bootcmd_kernel=fatload usb 0 0x6400000
>> uImage
>> > > > >> x_bootcmd_usb=usb start
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> U-Boot hangs for other syntactically correct
>> > invocations
>> > > of either
>> > > > >> 'fatload' or 'load'
>> > > > >> Other commands such as 'fatls' function as
>> expected.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Program flow is as follows:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> command 'fatload' (or 'load')
>> > > > >> efi_set_bootdev()
>> > > > >> ...
>> > > > >> efi_dp_split_file_path()
>> > > > >> ...
>> > > > >> efi_dp_dup()
>> > > > >> ....
>> > > > >>
>> efi_dp_size()
>> > > > >> *while
>> exit condition
>> > > never met*
>> > > > >> *infinite
>> > loop*
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> This is not an attempted EFI boot, why is
>> EFI code
>> > being
>> > > invoked ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for debugging.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > When booting from EFI we need to know from
>> which device
>> > > the EFI
>> > > > binary
>> > > > > was loaded. We use this information to
>> install the
>> > loaded
>> > > image
>> > > > > protocol. At the time of the load command we
>> do no
>> > know if
>> > > you will
>> > > > > invoke bootz or bootefi.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Isn't that the purpose of the 'load' command ?
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It might be that we have a problem with
>> creating device
>> > > paths for
>> > > > USB. I
>> > > > > will try to reproduce this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You could add
>> > > > >
>> > > > > printf("efi_dp_split_file_path(%pD)\n",
>> full_path);
>> > > > >
>> > > > > at the beginning of
>> efi_dp_split_file_path() to
>> > identify
>> > > what device
>> > > > > path is passed to the function. This should
>> produce an
>> > > output like
>> > > > >
>> > > > > => load scsi 0:2 $kernel_addr_r
>> description.txt
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> efi_dp_split_file_path(/VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/Scsi(0,0)/HD(2,MBR,0x6fe3a999,0x400,0x400)/description.txt)
>>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best regards
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Heinrich
>> > > >
>> > > > I just tested on an OrangePi PC with v2019.10
>> and got
>> > this:
>> > > >
>> > > > => fatload usb 0:1 $kernel_addr_r test.txt
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> efi_dp_split_file_path(/VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/UsbClass(0x0,0x0,0x9,0x0,0x1)/UsbClass(0x781,0x5571,0x0,0x0,0x0)/HD(1,MBR,0xfae8c6af,0x800,0x3b9f800)/test.txt)
>>
>> > > > device path =
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> /VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/UsbClass(0x0,0x0,0x9,0x0,0x1)/UsbClass(0x781,0x5571,0x0,0x0,0x0)/HD(1,MBR,0xfae8c6af,0x800,0x3b9f800)
>>
>> > > > file path = /test.txt
>> > > > 12 bytes read in 26 ms (0 Bytes/s)
>> > > > => md.b $kernel_addr_r 0c
>> > > > 42000000: 4a 75 73 74 20 61 20 74 65 73 74 0a
>> Just a
>> > test.
>> > > >
>> > > > So debugging on your specific device is needed.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Why do you want to debug EFI code on a device that
>> does not
>> > > support EFI ?
>> > > > I am not reporting a bug with EFI, the issue is
>> 'fatload'
>> > is now
>> > > broken
>> > > > by this commit.
>> > > > Once 'fatload' is fixed I am willing to test
>> U-Boot as
>> > required for
>> > > > other bugs whilst the
>> > > > dreamplug platform is available to me for such.
>> > >
>> > > Your system is compiled with EFI_LOADER. So you
>> could be
>> > using fatload
>> > > to load an EFI file. do_fatload() is the only place
>> where we
>> > can get the
>> > > device from which you load the file.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > No, that is (was before this commit) the purpose of 'load'.
>> > > I ask again, why do you want two commands that perform
>> exactly
>> > the same
>> > > action ?
>> > > Is it the intention to first unify them and then discard
>> one ?
>> >
>> > You are right that the commands ext2ls, ext2load, ext4ls,
>> ext4load,
>> > ext4save, ext4size, fatls, fatload, fatsave, and fatsize are
>> rather
>> > superfluous in the light of ls, load, save, and size. They
>> are just kept
>> > for backward compatibility.
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Could you, please, change the end of
>> efi_dp_from_file() to
>> > >
>> > > printf("fpsize = %u\n", fpsize);
>> > > printf("dpsize = %u\n", dpsize);
>> > > size_t i;
>> > > for (i = 0; i < dpsize + sizeof(END); ++i)
>> > > printf("0x%02x ", ((char
>> *)start)[i]):;
>> > > printf("\n");
>> > >
>> > > return start;
>> > >
>> > > and provide the output.
>> > >
>> > > On my system the output is
>> > >
>> > > => fatload usb 0 $kernel_addr_r uImage
>> > > fpsize = 18
>> > > dpsize = 102
>> > > 0x01 0x04 0x14 0x00 0xb9 0x73 0x1d 0xe6 0x84 0xa3 0xcc
>> 0x4a
>> > 0xae 0xab
>> > > 0x82 0xe8 0x28 0xf3 0x62 0x8b 0x03 0x0f 0x0b 0x00 0x00
>> 0x00
>> > 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x09 0x00 0x01 0x03 0x0f 0x0b 0x00 0x81 0x07 0x71 0x55
>> 0x00
>> > 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x04 0x01 0x2a 0x00 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x08 0x00
>> 0x00
>> > 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x18 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0xc3
>> 0x43
>> > 0x04 0xa5
>> > > 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> 0x00
>> > 0x01 0x01
>> > > 0x04 0x04 0x12 0x00 0x75 0x00 0x49 0x00 0x6d 0x00 0x61
>> 0x00
>> > 0x67 0x00
>> > > 0x65 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x7f 0xff 0x04 0x00
>> > >
>> >
>> efi_dp_split_file_path('/VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/UsbClass(0x0,0x0,0x9,0x0,0x1)/UsbClass(0x781,0x5571,0x0,0x0,0x0)/HD(1,MBR,0xa50443c3,0x800,0x1800)/uImage')
>>
>> > > 20 bytes read in 2 ms (9.8 KiB/s)
>> > > =>
>> > >
>> > > 0x7f 0xff 0x04 0x00
>> > > is the end of device path that seems to be missing for
>> you.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > This is the default (from the environment 'fatload'
>> command)
>> > > fpsize = 18
>> > > dpsize = 113
>> > > 0x01 0x04 0x14 0x00 0xb9 0x73 0x1d 0xe6 0x84 0xa3 0xcc
>> 0x4a 0xae 0xab
>> > > 0x82 0xe8 0x28 0xf3 0x62 0x8b 0x03 0x0f 0x0b 0x00 0x00
>> 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x09 0x00 0x01 0x03 0x0f 0x0b 0x00 0x40 0x1a 0x01 0x01
>> 0x09 0x00 0x01
>> > > 0x03 0x0f 0x0b 0x00 0xe3 0x05 0x26 0x07 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> 0x04 0x01 0x2a
>> > > 0x00 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x08 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0xf8 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x99 0x28 0x0f 0x00
>> 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 0x01
>> 0x04 0x04 0x12
>> > > 0x75 0x00 0x49 0x00 0x6d 0x00 0x61 0x00 0x67 0x00 0x65
>> 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x00 0x7f 0xff 0x04 0x00
>> >
>> > So here "uImage" is copied in one byte left of where we would
>> expect it
>> > according to the structure definition and overlaps the
>> dp->length field.
>> >
>> > struct efi_device_path_file_path {
>> > struct efi_device_path dp;
>> > u16 str[];
>> > } __packed;
>> >
>> > Could you, please, send me files lib/charset.o and
>> > lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.o.
>> >
>> > Which distribution and which version of GCC are you using?
>> >
>> > Adding the following printf() statements might give some more
>> insight:
>> >
>> > fp->dp.length = fpsize;
>> > printf("buf = %p\n", buf);
>> > printf("fp->str = %p\n", fp->str);
>> > path_to_uefi(fp->str, path);
>> > buf += fpsize;
>> >
>> > Should the above printf() statements have buf + 4 != fp->str:
>> > What happens when you change the structure to have »u16
>> str[0];«? (This
>> > is what was required before the C99 standard. Cf.
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html)
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> >
>> > Heinrich
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> efi_dp_split_file_path(/VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/UsbClass(0x0,0x0,0x9,0x0,0x1)/UsbClass(0x1a40,0x101,0x9,0x0,0x1)/UsbClass(0x5e3,0x726,0x0,0x0,0x0)/HD(1,MBR,0x000f2899,0x800,0x1f800)/uImage/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004)/UNKNOWN(0000,0004))
>>
>> > >
>> > > This is from the U-Boot command prompt with partition
>> specified
>> > > => fatload usb 0:1 0x6400000 uImage
>> > > fpsize = 18
>> > > dpsize = 113
>> > > 0x01 0x04 0x14 0x00 0xb9 0x73 0x1d 0xe6 0x84 0xa3 0xcc
>> 0x4a 0xae 0xab
>> > > 0x82 0xe8 0x28 0xf3 0x62 0x8b 0x03 0x0f 0x0b 0x00 0x00
>> 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x09 0x00 0x01 0x03 0x0f 0x0b 0x00 0x40 0x1a 0x01 0x01
>> 0x09 0x00 0x01
>> > > 0x03 0x0f 0x0b 0x00 0xe3 0x05 0x26 0x07 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> 0x04 0x01 0x2a
>> > > 0x00 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x08 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0xf8 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x99 0x28 0x0f 0x00
>> 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 0x01
>> 0x04 0x04 0x12
>> > > 0x75 0x00 0x49 0x00 0x6d 0x00 0x61 0x00 0x67 0x00 0x65
>> 0x00 0x00 0x00
>> > > 0x00 0x7f 0xff 0x04 0x00
>> > >
>> >
>> efi_dp_split_file_path(/VenHw(e61d73b9-a384-4acc-aeab-82e828f3628b)/UsbClass(0x0,0x0,0x9,0x0,0x1)/UsbClass(0x1a40,0x101,0x9,0x0,0x1)/UsbClass(0x5e3,0x726,0x0,0x0,0x0)/HD(1,MBR,0x000f2899,0x800,0x1f800)/uImage/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000)/UNKNOWN(0000,0000))
>>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Best regards
>> > >
>> > > Heinrich
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > x_bootcmd_kernel=fatload usb 0 0x6400000
>> uImage
>> > > > You do not specify a partition number. Do you
>> have a
>> > > partition table?
>> > > > Than the partition defaults to 1. Or does the
>> file
>> > system sit
>> > > directly
>> > > > on the device?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I also tested other syntactically correct
>> invocations of
>> > > 'fatload' which
>> > > > included the partition number.
>> > > > Execution does not return from efi_set_bootdev().
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Best regards
>> > > >
>> > > > Heinrich
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The issue is this commit forces 'fatload' and
>> 'load' to behave
>> > > > identically, it does nothing else.
>> > > > 'git show
>> ee88eacbdd840199a3dec707234579fb15ddd46a'
>> > > > Why would that duplication even be desired ?
>> > > >
>> > > > Further, the current approach of identical
>> behaviour is
>> > flawed, the
>> > > > following scenario will fail for all platforms.
>> > > >
>> > > > load scsi 0:2 $kernel_addr_r kernimg
>> > > > fatload scsi 0:1 $script_addr ubscript
>> > > > source $script_addr
>> > > >
>> > > > With this commit reverted the above scenario would
>> work as
>> > 'fatload'
>> > > > would not reset the EFI path.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Teaching granny to suck eggs....this is where my
>> head is at to
>> > > clarify
>> > > > what I am raising.
>> > > >
>> > > > The 'fatload' command is used to load discrete
>> files from
>> > a FAT
>> > > > filesystem into memory.
>> > > > It is not exclusively to do with booting, it is
>> often used
>> > to load a
>> > > > script for later sourcing
>> > > > to set variables such as IP's, or kernel command
>> line
>> > arguments,
>> > > or even
>> > > > load the kernel
>> > > > itself.
>> > > >
>> > > > 'fatload' has *nothing* to do with EFI, the fact
>> that EFI is
>> > > dependant
>> > > > on a FAT filesystem is a different issue.
>> > > > Invoking EFI code on non-EFI platforms is bad form
>> and is
>> > going
>> > > to bite
>> > > > back later again and again.
>> > > >
>> > > > I feel all this confusion has come about over the
>> > misnaming of 'load'
>> > > > (which for consistency should have been named
>> 'loadefi').
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Whilst the proposition 'EFI boot = FAT
>> filesystem'
>> > is True
>> > > > >> the converse 'FAT filesystem = EFI boot' is
>> Not True
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I am willing to help, but that may require
>> some EFI
>> > > hand-holding.
>> > > > >> Gray
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> PS. If anyone knows how to set '>' on reply
>> content in
>> > > GMail, please
>> > > > >> email me off list.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > Looking at the source:
>> >
>> > struct efi_device_path *efi_dp_from_file(struct blk_desc *desc,
>> int
>> > part, const char *path)
>> > ...
>> > if (desc)
>> > buf = dp_part_fill(buf, desc, part);
>> > // From this point on 'buf' can now be unaligned
>> > fp = buf;
>> > fp->dp.type = DEVICE_PATH_TYPE_MEDIA_DEVICE;
>> > fp->dp.sub_type = DEVICE_PATH_SUB_TYPE_FILE_PATH;
>> > ....
>> >
>> > Isn,t an unaligned structure an issue on the Kirkwood SoC ?
>>
>> U-Boot starts without support of unaligned data access. In
>> path_to_uefi() we call allow_unaligned() to switch the unaligned
>> access
>> support on.
>>
>> At least my GCC 9.2.1 creates code for __packed structures that
>> avoids
>> unaligned access but that may be different with your compiler.
>>
>> This is why I asked you to tell me which compiler version you are
>> using
>> and to supply the efi_device_tree.o and charset.o files. I really
>> need
>> your support to be able to understand what is happening as I can not
>> reproduce it on my systems. Cf.
>> https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-November/389847.html
>>
>>
>> I marked the position of the cross compiler details I originally
>> posted above, I expect it was missed in the noise....
>>
>> gcc-linaro-7.4.1-2019.02-x86_64_arm-linux-gnueabi
>>
>> be surprised if it was a compiler issue, the rest of U-Boot and the
>> Linux kernel compiles and runs.
>> I will email you some broken object files (built from unmodified
>> source) when I have my workstation back up and running properly (thank
>> Fedora 31).
>>
>>
>> I have prepared a patch
>>
>> https://github.com/xypron/u-boot-patches/blob/efi-next/0001-efi_loader-call-allow_unaligned-in-efi_set_bootdev.patch
>>
>> that moves the call to allow_unaligned() to efi_set_bootdev() but I
>> doubt that this will fix your problem.
>>
>> I have not made myself clear. When I said:
>> "Isn,t an unaligned structure an issue on the Kirkwood SoC ?"
>>
>> I mean "I believe unaligned access does not work well with the
>> Kirkwood SoC!"
>> This is from what I recall was happening back around 2012, obviously
>> things have changed.
>> If so, the code would need to be changed so the pointer to the struct
>> is aligned.
>
> The UEFI spec prescribes that unaligned access must be enabled. You
> cannot expect UEFI applications to use aligned access.
>
> If there is a design bug in the Kirkwood processor such that it does not
> correctly implement the unaligned flag the only option will be to
> disable CONFIG_EFI_LOADER for the boards. Afterwards efi_set_bootdev()
> will not be called anymore.
>
> But couldn't you, please, provide the information requested in the prior
> mail (pointer addresses, compiler version, object files) to elucidate if
> there is a toolchain issue.
>
> Best regards
>
> Heinrich
>
>>
>> Prafulla would be able to clear this up
>>
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list