From nobody Tue Oct 4 00:18:57 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-arm@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4MhJGX5Zfdz4V8G2 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 00:19:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "www.zefox.com", Issuer "www.zefox.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MhJGW4H2Nz3bQX for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 00:18:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 2940IvAr008193 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:18:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.16.1/8.15.2/Submit) id 2940IvuL008192; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:18:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:18:57 -0700 From: bob prohaska To: Mark Millard Cc: Klaus K??chemann , freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: u-boot debug, was: Re: U-boot on RPI3, sees disk but won't boot it Message-ID: <20221004001857.GA7109@www.zefox.net> References: <20221001193033.GA98348@www.zefox.net> <46226720-D867-4AD3-9559-A4365FAC28C4@yahoo.com> <6DB88FC9-629C-43E6-9673-32640FC547F7@yahoo.com> <20221002182049.GA2255@www.zefox.net> <5FFDAA6A-AD8C-4E40-A2EB-4082E5086679@googlemail.com> <38DFEB91-AC60-4FD1-8088-95B0A06C5E5D@yahoo.com> <20221003004624.GA3381@www.zefox.net> List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arm List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4MhJGW4H2Nz3bQX X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of fbsd@www.zefox.net has no SPF policy when checking 50.1.20.27) smtp.mailfrom=fbsd@www.zefox.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.10 / 15.00]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; WWW_DOT_DOMAIN(0.50)[]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arm@freebsd.org]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7065, ipnet:50.1.16.0/20, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[googlemail.com,freebsd.org]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zefox.net]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 07:30:57PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2022-Oct-2, at 17:46, bob prohaska wrote: > > > > > The more troublesome bridge contains a JMS577 chip, the less troublesome JMS576. > > I'm confused. The logs I have show 0x0583 (earlier) and 0x577 (later). > I'm not aware of a 0x0576 example in the set at all. > > (The JMS??? naming and the 0x0??? product ID's normally match for > the ??? part.) > On close inspection the enclosure recognized as 0x152d:0x583 contains the JMS576 chip. That's the better-behaved one. The enclosure recognized as 0x152d:0x0577 contains a JMS577 chip, that's the worse-behaved unit. It looks like the first two EC-UASP enclosures purchased (which both work fine on RPi4's) report 152d:1561. They are clearly different, with crystal cans on the circuit boards. The two units we're fiddling with presently came much later, under the same product description. > > I'll note that I've reverted my active environment back to > its normal content. I've not figured out a way to get > reasonable evidence, given the combinations we have observed. Understood. > I'll note that RPi3 EDK2 UEFI is not an option as far as I > know. I've never had it work for two things that I checked > up front: > I take it that EDK2 is a tool for _writing_ bootloaders, not a bootloader itself; is that correct? Thank you for all you help, I'm sorry it's turning into such a snipe hunt. bob prohaska