From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Sun May 31 14:31:09 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 C43EE336156 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 14:31:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan.kotowski@a9development.com) Received: from mail-40134.protonmail.ch (mail-40134.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "protonmail.com", Issuer "SwissSign Server Gold CA 2014 - G22" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49Zghr6J99z4Bfx for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 14:31:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan.kotowski@a9development.com) Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 14:31:03 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=a9development.com; s=protonmail; t=1590935466; bh=Urp2WnzcJ2TiDvnP20ye7Ibd4TEhZjJiiAFm7Nlss0Q=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=o5aWuYFYcCC/jODnhPKj+jh+YFNk6ASSqKDapczoOKVB1IBHcqKhfUEIIwosDosri 7xoAbPkXoqOe5doqYkD5y3VRSckxKUXTTWf26RJYqxtlMdZVxbyciAb5ifvlMm8AzV FKb5ss3l9o3d1Fj40aUQJD4uiFxfFhzOBAOr0xSA= To: "greg@unrelenting.technology" From: Dan Kotowski Cc: freebsd-arm Reply-To: Dan Kotowski Subject: Re: FreeBSD on Layerscape/QorIQ LX2160X Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4ad62e6669044f82e71a9d86fd493356@unrelenting.technology> References: <37858865a8ebddd3fe1e3a228a19ef62@unrelenting.technology> <7066da0bc417ed047dc27b4741c90e81@unrelenting.technology> <664db38a87ea8803be72af9738534994@unrelenting.technology> <8951311F-77F7-40B8-AEA0-F8CBCB1A05DE@yahoo.com> <4ad62e6669044f82e71a9d86fd493356@unrelenting.technology> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=7.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on mail.protonmail.ch X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49Zghr6J99z4Bfx X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=a9development.com header.s=protonmail header.b=o5aWuYFY; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=a9development.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of dan.kotowski@a9development.com designates 185.70.40.134 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dan.kotowski@a9development.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.84 / 15.00]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[dan.kotowski@a9development.com]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[a9development.com:s=protonmail]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:185.70.40.0/24]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.94)[-0.940]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.25)[0.253]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[185.70.40.134:from]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[a9development.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[a9development.com,none]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.05)[-1.053]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:62371, ipnet:185.70.40.0/24, country:CH]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[185.70.40.134:from] 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, 31 May 2020 14:31:09 -0000 > I've sent a link to a known firmware build before: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yXSS1O1U8CmtwaIPfxNDkzhAClJGvErK/view > Have you tried it? Any difference in FreeBSD/NetBSD, with NVMe? I decided to go back to the UEFI sources and have found some differences th= at I think need to be reconciled before moving forward. That said, I'm not = an ACPI wizard by any means - for me it's low-level mage spells at best... In https://github.com/SolidRun/edk2-platforms we have 2 different branches = that SolidRun seems to use: 1. LSDK-19.09-sr 2. master-lx2160a I've been building from the latter branch, but found some significant diffe= rences in the former that I think may be important to merge in. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 1. Platform/SolidRun/LX2160aCex7/DeviceTree/fsl-lx2160a-cex= 7.dts and Silicon/NXP/LX2160A/Include/DeviceTreeInclude/fsl-lx2160a.dtsi The former branch includes a number of devices and aliases that are not pre= sent in the latter (e.g. pcs_mdio5) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 2. Silicon/NXP/Include/Pcie.h Again, the former branch contains a handful of extra lines, but also forces= unsigned long on PCI_SEG_MMIO64_MAX_DIFF while the latter does not. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3. Silicon/NXP/Library/MmcLib/MmcInterface.c The former branch has a preprocessor conditional IsCardReadOnly. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 4. AcpiTables This is where I'm actually out of my depth. The former branch has them unde= r Platform/NXP/LX2160aCex7Pkg/AcpiTables/ while the latter under Silicon/NX= P/LX2160A/AcpiTables/ Start diving in and you start to notice some ugly differences. Just in Plat= form.h, we can see right at the top that the former branch is defined for t= he CEX7 platform while the latter is for the Reference Dev Board (RDB) plat= form. You can also see some pretty significant differences in the watchdogs= and then PCI and Stream IDs at the bottom. AcpiTables.inf and LX2170aCex7.inf share a BASE_NAME and FILE_GUID, but dif= ferent sources. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I can easily bodge in the first few itmes above, but I'd really appreciate = a second set of eyes from somebody with more ACPI experience as to whether = or not we need to merge anything from the LSDK-19.09-sr into master-lx2160a= . https://github.com/agrajag9/edk2-platforms/tree/a9-lx2160acex7