use invd instead of wbinvd in real mode start code
andy.shevchenko at gmail.com
Mon Feb 17 14:47:18 CET 2020
(Cc'ing mailing list and Tom again, thus keep entire previous answer)
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 3:39 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:41 PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy at kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 9:31 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It seems Masahiro's patches (don't know yet which one out of two,
> > > probably invd one) broke the boot on Intel Edison.
> > >
> > > Reverting (both for now) helps.
> > Why both?
> Because I did bisecting by intuition (much faster than usual one).
> > git bisect is the usual way to figure out the culprit.
> Too much work to do this way.
> And since I was about to have my lunch, I didn't continue
> investigating. Let me do it now.
OK, as my intuition told me the problematic one is
Author: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy at kernel.org>
Date: Wed Jan 8 20:08:44 2020 +0900
x86: use invd instead of wbinvd in real mode start code
Please, revert or fix ASAP before v2020.04 release!
> > > P.S. I dunno how it has been tested, so, if you have Intel Edison in
> > > possession, please, don't forget to test on it. It's not first time
> > > the Intel Edison behaviour is broken due to poor testing.
> > I tested my patches on qemu.
> Exactly my point of definition "poor".
> It's not first time (and not last) when QEmu sucks.
> > Sorry for the breakage on your board, but I do not
> > have Edison board.
> > It is not possible to test every board.
> No problem, it's rather to x86 maintainers to have at least one-two
> real hardware testing before applying this.
> QEMU is completely not enough!
With Best Regards,
More information about the U-Boot