From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Sat Feb 8 04:24:18 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 D2F4323790D for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 04:24:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "www.zefox.org", Issuer "www.zefox.org" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48DzZn0WRSz4NjW; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 04:24:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0184OVtc009004 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:24:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 0184OV0r009003; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:24:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:24:30 -0800 From: bob prohaska To: Mark Millard Cc: "jeff@freebsd.org" , freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, bob prohaska Subject: Re: RPi3 not using SMP? Message-ID: <20200208042430.GA8903@www.zefox.net> References: <20200208011940.GA8570@www.zefox.net> <6B6CCB8F-B56A-4758-BEEC-6418718C95CB@yahoo.com> <9F1B762C-D1DA-40F6-A2D6-451B40A39E4A@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9F1B762C-D1DA-40F6-A2D6-451B40A39E4A@yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48DzZn0WRSz4NjW 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 [2.98 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; WWW_DOT_DOMAIN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.06)[ip: (0.25), ipnet: 50.1.16.0/20(0.13), asn: 7065(-0.03), country: US(-0.05)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zefox.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.83)[0.834,0]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.82)[-0.816,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7065, ipnet:50.1.16.0/20, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 04:24:18 -0000 On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 07:10:58PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: > > > > psci0: on ofwbus0 > > psci0: PSCI version number 0 mismatched with DT, default 2 > > device_attach: psci0 attach returned 6 > > Is the "DT" in the boot message a reference to the Device Tree (blob)? If not then my question is on the wrong foot. I meant to wonder if the problem is simply using a wrong dtb file. It does seem clear that one or more things are somewhat amiss. Are they adequately advertised in existing bug reports, or should more noises be made? A search for psci on bugs.freebsd.org finds https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243118 but to the untrained eye it seems unrelated. Thanks for reading! bob prohaska > >