From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Sun Oct 18 16:30:09 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F520436A2D for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:30:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com (mail-io1-f68.google.com [209.85.166.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CDljX5NRBz4h7G for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:30:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id k6so10207968ior.2 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 09:30:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Klnmf2LCqTEeM1QvD92yb+POuOz0hYISM2a/IesFE/k=; b=TodxvIsq7Zd4V57Vt+b8UHrSDY+O8ljyqir4hekdc6CWyvVFAuBS9DlTS/jx5CmLjf 6Oo3WJlqp5HzRvLFhHtX4QBrtV5ZYBwmqxo+EY//xsCWWC9NQkN8wyXJq0ctTCPK44tx JY1qJyQC56+5Sx7yRf2tdctFoe3x+vtU7Cj29aOYbMtkxSo/DO8xCpOh2IQYpW6ORp6e giNd+/PDUsBqQj/T/J7tLjnpPeH3ujlxeDYRbNf2C4KTBdklq8PFrM0Dw0vH9yLzMa6T e0mtsO76sAdJXsSITSQMdx1O9enJaIjEzY9+T6DP30iGJ52AygighWdmF+Igk7UKgmt5 bPog== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532g+U9FWF8BpA8gnLrS7WF11r0Q5M0VnnSTGpmzhsXaEU82hQSA cLqCybqdT9D0OhtYZETTVvF3dFJUiu8wUkHA294= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNyG8sNnleMBQ6RW9iUzFNTfQ7VGVUzur1ZiCzOR8XWRGFgqVQclyXjbdHLyHx7PI/FvQaZUuOySOz12GifkM= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:d80d:: with SMTP id y13mr8414575iob.15.1603038607712; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 09:30:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <472221209.496244.1602086031265@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <472221209.496244.1602086031265@mail.yahoo.com> From: Ed Maste Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 12:29:55 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BBB boot failure between r366365 and r366386 To: Oskar Holmlund Cc: freebsd-arm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CDljX5NRBz4h7G X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.68 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.76 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[carpeddiem]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-arm@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.94)[-0.943]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.94)[-0.936]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.166.68:from]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.88)[-0.877]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.166.68:from]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arm]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:30:09 -0000 On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 11:54, Oskar Holmlund wrote: > > I can not reproduce the problem - I have tested r366366 - r366386 and as of today r366515 and all works fine. U-boot is same as yours 2020.07. But i have not tested to netboot the BBB, i have only tested from SD card and from eMMC. > I can try the kernel and base from the CI builds later. It turns out the issue was dependent on the order of allocations etc., so it may be that some seemingly unrelated difference (such as whether or not netbooting) would result in success or failure. Mark has a set of reviews open for the fix, and I hope to see CI green again next week.