From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Wed Sep 27 10:02:11 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B00FE301D1 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:02:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from manu@bidouilliste.com) Received: from mail.blih.net (mail.blih.net [212.83.177.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.blih.net", Issuer "mail.blih.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3C5E6C0AA; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:02:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from manu@bidouilliste.com) Received: from mail.blih.net (mail.blih.net [212.83.177.182]) by mail.blih.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id ebac9759; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:02:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=bidouilliste.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mail; bh=FkUBvCXn9IlscV1USFdCBLjUFoo=; b=A7qML0xdTUpYft9OpOat1mVK4VLi Jr/6KCkY5sHaWGqdZU45k9OCUFU8JS1lYYcQDP4bOe7l2Nq1/d3Ej8uBqVK9vB2l r+2dvp0ZGIipCLKyffOLKxRw1xOWgIrR0Uu+RPQqUfFc8cyVq58B/xEE4Vg/JnW1 IeAOpgxdxc2kWpE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=bidouilliste.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= mail; b=Jv/lecDbC4bTfdj0yPCQC4mlBgbbTQBbBwsakenLuy7i6Uf5eYhpE2Rf 7nplLfl3hhOY+RdnKoOBmNL2p4PSjMaF83LKqugiMOTww+71B+F47vnHZc4ua31t TNadCsbJlTfgr3i9NwUoZR70FRMLxX5M0zyL94DcmxXm+mpmfDw= Received: from arcadia (evadot.gandi.net [217.70.181.36]) by mail.blih.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id f161d361 TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:02:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:02:06 +0200 From: Emmanuel Vadot To: Warner Losh Cc: Ian Lepore , freebsd-arm Subject: Re: CUBOX snapshots working? Message-Id: <20170927120206.6bfd125854c6cee0af1f8bcd@bidouilliste.com> In-Reply-To: References: <201709260339.VAA16701@mail.lariat.net> <1506460653.73082.156.camel@freebsd.org> <1506466528.73082.172.camel@freebsd.org> <20170927112015.e997d7b1b8e9002c8377547a@bidouilliste.com> <20170927112548.1b405a726da9938c26ad5cbb@bidouilliste.com> <20170927113226.899fbb9617783b356bdb6279@bidouilliste.com> <20170927115429.2cb567567a0523961bae677b@bidouilliste.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; amd64-portbld-freebsd12.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:02:11 -0000 On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:59:14 -0600 Warner Losh wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Emmanuel Vadot > wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:34:29 -0600 > > Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Emmanuel Vadot > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:28:39 -0600 > > > > Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Emmanuel Vadot < > > manu@bidouilliste.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:22:42 -0600 > > > > > > Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Warner Losh > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Emmanuel Vadot < > > > > manu@bidouilliste.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:05:40 -0600 > > > > > > > >> Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Ian Lepore < > > ian@freebsd.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 16:45 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ian Lepore < > > > > ian@freebsd.org> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 14:07 -0700, Russell Haley > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Emmanuel Vadot > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > te.c > > > > > > > >> > > > > > om> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:21:52 -0600 > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 20:04 +0200, Emmanuel > > Vadot > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:32:21 -0600 > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Brett Glass wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > One would think that sauce for the goose > > would > > > > be > > > > > > sauce > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > gander. But is this particular Cubox now > > useless > > > > > > with > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > FreeBSD? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > And if so, why? It is not an unusual model. > > The > > > > > > Cubox > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > if I flash their "Ignition" startup software > > > > (which > > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bootstrap by downloading various OS images) > > to > > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Micro SD card. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --Brett Glass > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The problem isn't FreeBSD related, it's > > U-Boot > > > > > > related. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > You could test build mainline u-boot just to > > > > confirm > > > > > > that > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > something due to our ports. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we used to provide working cubox images and > > we > > > > don't > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > anymore, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > hard to call that anything but a freebsd > > problem. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > There is working cubox images, the last one is > > from > > > > > > > >> yesterday. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > You even say yourself that you did test it and > > that > > > > it > > > > > > > >> worked. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Do we even know if the snapshot worked for this > > > > board ? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Brett, could you test the 11.0 release for > > example ? > > > > (I > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > remember > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > if for 11.1 we already switch u-boot or not). > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I believe the change is in the u-boot port itself. > > > > However, > > > > > > I > > > > > > > >> > > > > > don't > > > > > > > >> > > > > > think it's a u-boot problem (IMHO), it's a u-boot > > build > > > > > > > >> > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > >> > > > > > problem. There are different board variants with > > > > different > > > > > > > >> > > > > > hardware > > > > > > > >> > > > > > layout. u-boot has code for it, but our build does > > not > > > > > > account > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Unless the scripts that build the 11.1 image use a > > > > different > > > > > > > >> > > > > > revision > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of the u-boot port, wouldn't it just use the current > > > > 2017.7 > > > > > > > >> base? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm trying to figure out how to generate a u-boot > > with > > > > the > > > > > > > >> > > > > > correct > > > > > > > >> > > > > > SPL > > > > > > > >> > > > > > portion of u-boot. One could pull the SolidRun > > u-boot > > > > repo, > > > > > > or > > > > > > > >> go > > > > > > > >> > > > > > find > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the ports commit before the changeover and see if > > we can > > > > > > > >> generate > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> > > > > > correct SPL. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I looked at Mainline u-boot and there is a board > > > > directory > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >> > > > > > solid > > > > > > > >> > > > > > run. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/board/ > > > > > > solidrun/ > > > > > > > >> mx6cu > > > > > > > >> > > > > > boxi > > > > > > > >> > > > > > /mx6cuboxi.c > > > > > > > >> > > > > > seems to support multiple memory configurations > > based on > > > > > > > >> defines, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > so > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this should just be a configuration problem. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > We clearly need to start supporting the lower spec'd > > > > > > SolidRun > > > > > > > >> > > > > > boards > > > > > > > >> > > > > > because this has come up a couple of times now > > since the > > > > > > > >> > > > > > changeover. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > It should be just a matter of creating a port that > > does > > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thing > > > > > > > >> > > > > > but generates the correct SPL file? My SOM is a > > i2eX so > > > > I > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be > > > > > > > >> > > > > > too > > > > > > > >> > > > > > much help (and I've also over volunteered myself!). > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Russ > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The old imx6 uboot ports generated a single copy of > > uboot > > > > that > > > > > > > >> > > > > would > > > > > > > >> > > > > boot dual and quad-core versions of both hummingboard > > and > > > > > > cubox > > > > > > > >> > > > > systems. If the new uboot works only on quad core, > > that's > > > > > > another > > > > > > > >> > > > > regression. It might be possible to extract the > > > > u-boot.imx > > > > > > file > > > > > > > >> > > > > from a > > > > > > > >> > > > > freebsd 10 image to get back to the old one. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ooops. Except it appears those no longer exist. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Is this a loss of functionality when the changes were > > > > > > upstreamed? Is > > > > > > > >> > > > it a > > > > > > > >> > > > bad configuration on our part? Any idea what might be > > going > > > > on > > > > > > or > > > > > > > >> how > > > > > > > >> > > > to > > > > > > > >> > > > fix it? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > The vendor uboot worked well. The generic mainline, > > > > apparently > > > > > > not so > > > > > > > >> > > much. It may indicate that the vendor didn't upstream > > > > > > everything. I > > > > > > > >> > > haven't worked much with the new imx6 uboot packages > > because > > > > for > > > > > > me > > > > > > > >> > > they're completely unusable because they lack support for > > > > > > netbooting. > > > > > > > >> > > (If you feel tempted to say something about efi and > > > > netbooting, > > > > > > > >> please > > > > > > > >> > > provide links to how-to documentation at the very least, > > and > > > > an > > > > > > > >> example > > > > > > > >> > > that works for armv6 would be even better.) > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > I didn't think that we were enabling EFI + armv6 on anything > > > > yet by > > > > > > > >> > default... > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Can't help you there. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Warner > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> We do, EFI is enabled by default in U-Boot on most of the > > boards. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And GENERIC actually supports that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And more importantly, we have the right tooling to build the > > right > > > > images > > > > > > > for EFI booting? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Warner > > > > > > > > > > > > GENERIC supports that and boot1.efi/loader.efi built for arm is > > > > > > correctly built. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And -stable kernels boot with this setup as well? Or is this not > > default > > > > > for ports-built u-boot? > > > > > > > > > > And the tooling goes well beyond just boot1.efi, and includes things > > like > > > > > making sure the release images work correctly. And EFI support is > > about > > > > to > > > > > start requiring efirt working (well, efibootmgr is coming soon) to > > manage > > > > > booting, at least on x86. What's the story for arm? > > > > > > > > > > Warner > > > > > > > > You can take the release image for BBB for example, put boot1.efi > > > > as /EFI/boot/bootarm.efi in the MSDOS partition and it will work (I > > > > don't remember right now if you need U-Boot to load the DTB or not but > > > > it's just a matter or puting the DTB in the MSDOS as well under / > > > > or /DTB). > > > > > > > > > Do they work w/o doing that? > > > > > > Warner > > > > Without doing what ? The release script don't put boot1.efi on the > > msdos partition. If we do it, it will have a higher priority than > > loading ubldr. We should do it at one point, but not now. > > > Sorry, I mean 'will we boot with the old, crappy u-boot ABI interface to > /boot/loader and have a kernel boot'. Sounds like the answer is 'that still > works, don't worry'. > > Warner Oh yes sure, with the same U-Boot and kernel you can either use ubldr or boot1.efi (or loader.efi if you netboot). -- Emmanuel Vadot