Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:39:11 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Rahul Rameshbabu <sergeantsagara@protonmail.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: State of the freebsd/crochet project? Message-ID: <6770937E-CBA2-4B50-AD7E-71707E36BFF1@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <19481390-118F-4527-BEDC-9935C695A27D@yahoo.com> References: <87ttqrqnal.fsf@protonmail.com> <ZS6FAjRlRimUVoWR@int21h> <CANCZdfq%2B4L-guWeEck5OqgFTuXLv%2B6BLOfcDuqVgUSvm7X9SUg@mail.gmail.com> <ZS6PuBrr9wChkhov@int21h> <CANCZdfqAhAeuc-K6O3T-E6FGgy-Lktutc3NSfcmRO5OrhSxYJg@mail.gmail.com> <87wmvjjkae.fsf@protonmail.com> <33693188-5C53-4C9E-8F67-647655E957BD@yahoo.com> <8734y5amia.fsf@protonmail.com> <19481390-118F-4527-BEDC-9935C695A27D@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 20, 2023, at 00:31, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2023, at 22:30, Rahul Rameshbabu =
<sergeantsagara@protonmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On Thu, 19 Oct, 2023 00:45:25 -0700 "Mark Millard" =
<marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 2023, at 21:41, Rahul Rameshbabu =
<sergeantsagara@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct, 2023 09:01:33 -0600 "Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> =
wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 7:44 AM void <void@f-m.fm> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 07:13:28AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Crochet has no active maintainers. Most people have moved on to =
poudriere.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Does poudriere handle the msdos uboot *and* efi part when
>>>>> creating the image?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Yes. I worked with manu years ago to put all the needed metadata =
for the different boards into the ports...
>>>>=20
>>>> It does but it seems to have an unfortunate caveat. It assumes that
>>>> FAT16 is supported by all embedded targets. The Raspberry Pi 4 and =
I
>>>> assume the Pi 5 as well drop support for FAT16
>>>=20
>>> The snapshot images booted the RPI4B's that I have access to just =
fine
>>> last I tried such. But release/arm64/RPI.conf and =
release/tools/arm.subr
>>> which are used to build such uses (selective axtractions across =
files):
>>>=20
>>> FAT_SIZE=3D"50m -b 1m"
>>> FAT_TYPE=3D"16"
>>> . . .
>>> gpart add -t efi -l efi -a 512k -s ${FAT_SIZE} ${mddev}
>>> newfs_msdos -L efi -F ${FAT_TYPE} /dev/${mddev}s1
>>>=20
>>> FreeBSD release images are also build with such: efi partition
>>> type and a FAT16 file system.
>>>=20
>>> Looking at a (my abbreviation) RaspiOS64 boot media used to boot
>>> the RPi4B's (official RPi* media content, not FreeBSD materials):
>>>=20
>>> # newfs_msdos -N /dev/da0s1
>>> /dev/da0s1: 523984 sectors in 32749 FAT16 clusters (8192 =
bytes/cluster)
>>> BytesPerSec=3D512 SecPerClust=3D16 ResSectors=3D1 FATs=3D2 =
RootDirEnts=3D512 Media=3D0xf0 FATsecs=3D128 SecPerTrack=3D63 Heads=3D255 =
HiddenSecs=3D0 HugeSectors=3D524288
>>>=20
>>> But it does have a partition type of fat32lba:
>>>=20
>>> # gpart show -p /dev/da0
>>> =3D> 63 468862065 da0 MBR (224G)
>>> 63 8129 - free - (4.0M)
>>> 8192 524288 da0s1 fat32lba (256M)
>>> 532480 468329648 da0s2 linux-data (223G)
>>>=20
>>> Do you know some specific RPi4B EEPROM content for which a FAT16
>>> file syatem is not supported? (The EEPROM has the RPi4B boot
>>> loader.) Or are you saying some U-Boot vintage is restricted to
>>> FAT32 file systems for loading FreeBSD's EFI/BOOT/bootaa64.efi ?
>>=20
>> Yes, I believe that newer EEPROMs in 2020 and above (don't have the
>> exact release version but I can bisect if we need to know) no longer
>> support FAT16 unfortunately.
>=20
> I just booted a RPi4B Rev 1.5 "C0T" part that has:
>=20
> RPi: BOOTLOADER release VERSION:8ba17717 DATE: 2023/01/11 TIME: =
17:40:52
> BOOTMODE: 0x06 partition 63 build-ts BUILD_TIMESTAMP=3D1673458852 =
serial c740af3c boardrev d03115 stc 421180
> Halt: wake: 1 power_off: 0
>=20
> off the (what I call) RaspiOS64 media that I referenced earlier.
>=20
> That means FAT16 with a partition indicating fat32lba.
>=20
> There have been bug fixes, such as the 2022=3D01-31 EEPROM release =
that
> reported: "FAT/GPT fixes and file-system performance improvements."
>=20
>> Here is a relevant link on Raspberry Pi
>> forums but I can experiment with pinning an exact EEPROM version from
>> the Raspberry PI repository if need be. When I got my Raspberry Pi 4
>> board recently, I did an upgrade to the latest EEPROM version and
>> noticed this issue.
>>=20
>> * https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=3D278295#p1685235
>=20
> At that point (2020-06) there were only 2 tagged EEPROM content
> releases:
>=20
> v2020.04.16-137ad
> v2019.09.10-137ad
>=20
> There are 11 from after 2020-06.
>=20
>> * https://github.com/raspberrypi/rpi-eeprom/releases
>>=20
>> I am using the BOOT_UART feature of the Raspberry Pi 4 for this
>> debugging. I was debugging why the image I created at the had failed =
and
>> noticed the bootloader was failing to actually access/read any =
content
>> from the boot partition of the SD card. Switching to FAT32 resolved =
the
>> issue for me immediately, making me trust the assumption about the =
state
>> of later EEPROM releases from the repository.
>=20
> As I've indicated, the official releases of official RPi*
> images have FAT16 files systems for the RPi* firmware --and
> they boot just fine when dd'd to the USB3 media that I use.
>=20
> Similarly, the modern official FreeBSD images boot just fine
> and also have FAT16 for the msdosfs for the RPi*
> firmware+U-Boot+FreeBSED-UEFI-loader.
>=20
> FreeBSD has had problems with a U-Boot vintage that was messed
> up for 8 GiByte RPi4B's. But that is now in the past.
>=20
>> I noticed in that first link I added here, there seems to be mixed
>> opinions on whether the FAT16 file system is supported or not on =
latest
>> EEPROM releases for the Pi 4. Let me go back and test once again with =
a
>> FAT16 file system for my boot partition. I am currently running Jan =
11,
>> 2023 release (I see they have a new release for Oct 18, 2023).
>=20
> I've not tested the 2023-10-18 release.
>=20
>> On a side note for myself, might be nice to throw the rpi-eeprom =
tools
>> into a port for others to easily grab.
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Or may be you are referencing the partition type (expressed here
>>> in gpart terms), instead of the actual file system type that is
>>> contained? :
>>>=20
>>> efi The system partition for computers that =
use the
>>> Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI). The =
scheme-
>>> specific types are "!239" for MBR, and
>>> "!c12a7328-f81f-11d2-ba4b-00a0c93ec93b" =
for GPT.
>>> . . .
>>> fat16 A partition that contains a FAT16 =
filesystem. The
>>> scheme-specific type is "!6" for MBR.
>>>=20
>>> fat32 A partition that contains a FAT32 =
filesystem. The
>>> scheme-specific type is "!11" for MBR.
>>>=20
>>> fat32lba A partition that contains a FAT32 (LBA)
>>> filesystem. The scheme-specific type is =
"!12" for
>>> MBR.
>>>=20
>>> (It has been some time since last I tried it, but last I tried
>>> partition type fat16, the RPi4B's boot from it just fine if I
>>> remember right. But GPT is supported, not just MBR.)
>>>=20
>>=20
>> I am not referring to the partition type rather than the real =
filesystem
>> type, but thanks for checking. In my boot flow with the image I
>> generate, I am using the efi partition type.
>>=20
>>>> , so the boot partition
>>>> needs to be FAT32.
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Not for the actual file system for any fairly modern vintage of
>>> RPi4B EEPROM content or U-Boot that I'm aware of. I've less
>>> certainty about the range of partition types, not having tested
>>> such in recent times.
>>>=20
>>> Is there a chance you are using so large of an msdos file
>>> system that a FAT32/FAT32LBA file system is a requirement?
>>=20
>> Great question but I believe that is not the case since for the same
>> msdos file system (though with different components from =
rpi-firmware),
>> I am able to boot the Raspberry Pi 3 up correctly. Let me verify once
>> more FAT16 (the filesystem) was indeed problematic for me since I was
>> debugging other issues like not realizing the Pi 4 needed different
>> components from the rpi-firmware project compared to previous boards.
>>=20
>=20
One more point: the 1st Capture.JPG image shows:
c-count 0 c-size 0 r-dir 0 r-sec 0
As I understand it, that is showing that the information was corrupt
as read: valid FAT16 would not have that combination.
=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6770937E-CBA2-4B50-AD7E-71707E36BFF1>