- boot-architecture - lists.linaro.org

Issue for BEAGLE BONE BLACK - bootup with UEFI

by Mohan Rao .vanimina

Hi Team, When trying to boot-up BeagleBoneBlack Platform using UEFI with below procedure (instead of U-boot), ran into following issue. Followed Web link : https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/BeagleBoardPkg#Beagle… I had a doubt on the provided git repository in this procedure. Does this repo supports BeagelBoneBlack Platform? *Error when Tried in Qemu: * EhcCreateUsb2Hc: capability length 0 EhcDriverBindingStart: failed to create USB2_HC ERROR: Did not find Linux kernel. [1] Linux from SD - VenHw(B615F1F5-5088-43CD-809C-A16E52487D00)/HD(1,MBR,0x00000000,0x3F,0x19FC0)/zImage - Arguments: console=tty0 console=ttyS2,115200n8 root=UUID=a4af765b-c2b5-48f4-9564-7a4e9104c4f6 rootwait ro earlyprintk - LoaderType: Linux kernel with ATAG support [2] Shell [3] Boot Manager Start: qemu: terminating on signal 2 *Error ; sd Card : **DATA abort Error coming when tried booting thru sd-card* Could you please help in debug this issue? Regards, Mohan.

8 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

[PSCI] CPU 1 bring up while CPU 0 loading bootloader

by Atul Raut

Hi, Is there any way I can bring cpu-1 while cpu-0 is running bootloader ? Need help with setting up C-environment for cpu-1. Was able to set up PSCI framework. Regards, Atul

10 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Farewell - last days at ARM Ltd

by Olivier Martin

For people who does not know me I have been the EDK2 maintainer of the ARM Packages for the last 4 years. I took over the excellent work Andrew Fish and Eugene Cohen started few years before. This week was my last week at ARM - my last day would be on Friday 17th (UK time). I have been learning a lot thanks to the UEFI community. Being the ARM maintainer has been a great opportunity. I also had the chance to go to few conferences to discuss and present my work and meet few of you as part of my job. I have been asked last week what is the new exciting place that makes me leave ARM. The answer is my own future start-up... I love challenges and I think this one is definitely one of the highest one I could find. It is actually quite scary but I am quite excited! I could potentially have kept my role of EDK2 ARM maintainer with me but I would prefer to give the task to Leif Lindholm who has been a co-maintainer for almost two months. So I could fully focus on my new adventure. Leif has been seating not far from me in the ARM office. We have also had regular meetings about UEFI. He has been at ARM Ltd longer than me and been involved in different Open Source projects. He has also been working on UEFI for Linaro for few (three?) years now. I have been trying to publish as much work as I can on the work I have done on UEFI for the last 5 years and half at ARM Ltd in the last two weeks. Unfortunately, I am not sure I will have time to publish everything. But I will do my best to publish the most important bits... Unfortunately, it is still too early to share more details about my future product, so I created a quick website (and found a neutral name) last week-end to allow people to follow the adventure: http://labapart.com/ (can either be pronounced as "Lab apart" or "Lab à Part"). If you would like to contact me, email me here: olivier.martin.fr(a)gmail.com and/or linkedin me: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olivierm. Cheers, Olivier -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782

10 years, 9 months

3
2
0 0

Ext2/Ext3 filesystem support

by Meenakshi Aggarwal

Hi, This is my first query on this list. I apologize for any mistake. I have some queries on following patch : https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2013-June/000325.html I am not able to see this patch in master branch. Is this patch tested? Also I want to know the underline firmware volume on which this patch has been tested? Thanks & regards Meenakshi Aggarwal

10 years, 9 months

4
6
0 0

RE: AARCH64: Timer Dxe

by Sharma Bhupesh

Hi Laszlo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 5:59 PM > To: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; > olivier.martin(a)arm.com; Leif Lindholm; boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > Subject: Re: AARCH64: Timer Dxe > > On 06/13/15 10:52, Sharma Bhupesh wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Can some ARM expert help me with my queries below. > > > > The overall context is that I cannot get the 'ArmPlatformPkg/Bds/Bds.c' > auto-timeout to trigger. > > > > The following snippet of code shows how the timeout is created as a > event using the CreateEvent and SetTimer APIs. > > > > However I cannot the SetTimer API triggering a call to the > corresponding TimerDriverSetTimerPeriod API inside > 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' > > Do you reach the gBS->SetTimer() call at all? For example, if there was a > non-volatile variable called Timeout, with value 0xFFFF or 0, that could > prevent it. Yes, via debugger tracing I can see that the gBS->SetTimer() call is indeed invoked and calls DXE Core's respective CoreTimerXXXX() APIs Regards, Bhupesh > > > > > if (Timeout != 0xFFFF) { > > if (Timeout > 0) { > > // Create the waiting events (keystroke and 1sec timer) > > gBS->CreateEvent (EVT_TIMER, 0, NULL, NULL, &WaitList[0]); > > gBS->SetTimer (WaitList[0], TimerPeriodic, > EFI_SET_TIMER_TO_SECOND); > > WaitList[1] = gST->ConIn->WaitForKey; > > > > // Start the timer > > WaitIndex = 0; > > Print(L"The default boot selection will start in "); > > while ((Timeout > 0) && (WaitIndex == 0)) { > > Print(L"%3d seconds",Timeout); > > gBS->WaitForEvent (2, WaitList, &WaitIndex); > > if (WaitIndex == 0) { > > Print(L"\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b"); > > Timeout--; > > } > > } > > > > So, I just wanted to understand if the auto-timeout during boot works > > on Juno-Rev1 and if yes, how does it connect to the underlying > > ArmArchTimerLib > > > > Please help. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:01 PM > >> To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'olivier.martin(a)arm.com' > >> Subject: AARCH64: Timer Dxe > >> > >> Hi Olivier, > >> > >> 1. I am looking at the 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' DXE > >> driver and seeing how the timer interrupts are registered: > >> > >> // Install secure and Non-secure interrupt handlers > >> // Note: Because it is not possible to determine the security state > >> of the > >> // CPU dynamically, we just install interrupt handler for both sec > >> and non-sec > >> // timer PPI > >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > >> (PcdArmArchTimerVirtIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > >> > >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > >> (PcdArmArchTimerHypIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > >> > >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > >> (PcdArmArchTimerSecIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > >> > >> Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > >> (PcdArmArchTimerIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > >> ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > >> > >> I wanted to understand how the Interrupt registration changes for PPI > >> or SPI interrupt sources. > >> As usually the Virtual, Hypervisor, Physical and Physical Non-Secure > >> interrupts are PPI does the PPI number need to be defined as the PCD > >> values in the same way as linux. The Linux gicv3 documentation says > >> (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic-v3.txt): > >> > >> SPI interrupts are in the range [0-987]. PPI interrupts are in the > >> range [0-15]. > >> > >> 2. Also one related question is whether on Juno Rev1, you are able to > >> get the BootDelay to work via timer based events? If yes, can you > >> please share if you achieve this by using the ARMv8 generic timer or > >> the SP804 timer. > >> > > > > Regards, > > Bhupesh > >

10 years, 10 months

1
0
0 0

RE: AARCH64: Timer Dxe

by Sharma Bhupesh

Hi, Can some ARM expert help me with my queries below. The overall context is that I cannot get the 'ArmPlatformPkg/Bds/Bds.c' auto-timeout to trigger. The following snippet of code shows how the timeout is created as a event using the CreateEvent and SetTimer APIs. However I cannot the SetTimer API triggering a call to the corresponding TimerDriverSetTimerPeriod API inside 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' if (Timeout != 0xFFFF) { if (Timeout > 0) { // Create the waiting events (keystroke and 1sec timer) gBS->CreateEvent (EVT_TIMER, 0, NULL, NULL, &WaitList[0]); gBS->SetTimer (WaitList[0], TimerPeriodic, EFI_SET_TIMER_TO_SECOND); WaitList[1] = gST->ConIn->WaitForKey; // Start the timer WaitIndex = 0; Print(L"The default boot selection will start in "); while ((Timeout > 0) && (WaitIndex == 0)) { Print(L"%3d seconds",Timeout); gBS->WaitForEvent (2, WaitList, &WaitIndex); if (WaitIndex == 0) { Print(L"\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b"); Timeout--; } } So, I just wanted to understand if the auto-timeout during boot works on Juno-Rev1 and if yes, how does it connect to the underlying ArmArchTimerLib Please help. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:01 PM > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'olivier.martin(a)arm.com' > Subject: AARCH64: Timer Dxe > > Hi Olivier, > > 1. I am looking at the 'ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c' DXE driver > and seeing how the timer interrupts are registered: > > // Install secure and Non-secure interrupt handlers > // Note: Because it is not possible to determine the security state of > the > // CPU dynamically, we just install interrupt handler for both sec and > non-sec > // timer PPI > Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > (PcdArmArchTimerVirtIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > > Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > (PcdArmArchTimerHypIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > > Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > (PcdArmArchTimerSecIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > > Status = gInterrupt->RegisterInterruptSource (gInterrupt, PcdGet32 > (PcdArmArchTimerIntrNum), TimerInterruptHandler); > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status); > > I wanted to understand how the Interrupt registration changes for PPI or > SPI interrupt sources. > As usually the Virtual, Hypervisor, Physical and Physical Non-Secure > interrupts are PPI does the PPI number need to be defined as the PCD > values in the same way as linux. The Linux gicv3 documentation says > (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic-v3.txt): > > SPI interrupts are in the range [0-987]. PPI interrupts are in the range > [0-15]. > > 2. Also one related question is whether on Juno Rev1, you are able to get > the BootDelay to work via timer based events? If yes, can you please > share if you achieve this by using the ARMv8 generic timer or the SP804 > timer. > Regards, Bhupesh

10 years, 10 months

2
3
0 0

boot over nfs;

by vladi solov

Hello i am trying to boot linaro(12.11) filesystem over nfs on my soc; Configured the tftp/dhcp/nfs-export/ + recompiled the kernel with nfs_root and practically have the system working with other root fileSystem; Have some problem to boot on linaro fs over nfs; any help will be appreciated; Current error i got is after kernel booting and succeeded to mount the fs: .... VFS: Mounted root (nfs filesystem) on device 0:11. Freeing unsued kernel memory... init: ureadahead main process (596) terminated with status 5 then it hang forever...pls advice... thnks vlad

11 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

AARCH64 UEFI and EL3

by bhupesh.sharma＠freescale.com

Hi, The current AARCH64 UEFI is designed to run entirely in EL2 with the assumption that the ARM Trusted FW (ATF) running in EL3 and launching UEFI in EL2. As a result if we try to use the UEFI bootloader as a bare-metal debug tool (w/o the ATF, BootROM and so on..), we get an assertion failure in ArmConfigureMmu call (PEI phase). "UEFI should not run in EL3". However when I look at 'ArmPkg/Library/ArmLib/Common/AArch64/ArmLibSupport.S', I see some function implementations support UEFI running in EL3... ASM_PFX(ArmSetTTBR0): EL1_OR_EL2_OR_EL3(x1) 1:msr ttbr0_el1, x0 // Translation Table Base Reg 0 (TTBR0) b 4f 2:msr ttbr0_el2, x0 // Translation Table Base Reg 0 (TTBR0) b 4f 3:msr ttbr0_el3, x0 // Translation Table Base Reg 0 (TTBR0) 4:isb ret ...But others in the same file, don't seem to support UEFI running in EL3: ASM_PFX(ArmGetTTBR0BaseAddress): EL1_OR_EL2(x1) 1:mrs x0, ttbr0_el1 b 3f 2:mrs x0, ttbr0_el2 3:LoadConstantToReg(0xFFFFFFFFFFFF, x1) /* Look at bottom 48 bits */ and x0, x0, x1 isb ret Does UEFI provide some placeholders to make vendor specific changes in the SEC or PEI phase to enable execution in EL3 mode? Last I gathered from the discussions on the UEFI mailing lists, it seems that the some changes in PEI specs is required to accommodate ARM Trusted Firmware (ATF) and UEFI running in EL2. Where can I get more information on the same Regards, Bhupesh

11 years, 8 months

2
1
0 0

[HOWTO] Implement / Validate / Debug / Tune UEFI Runtime drivers

by Olivier Martin

I have just finished to write a wikipage to help people to implement and debug UEFI Runtime drivers based on the Tianocore project (Open Source implementation of the UEFI spec). To validate the UEFI Runtime drivers, I have been using the Linux kernel with EFI Stub support (https://wiki.linaro.org/LEG/Engineering/Kernel/UEFI/EFIstub): Linux kernel available here: https://git.linaro.org/people/leif.lindholm/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ue fi-for-next The wikipage: https://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?title=ArmPkg/Runt ime

12 years

1
0
0 0

Tianocore now supports Android FastBoot

by Olivier Martin

Dear all, Android FastBoot support has been added to Tianocore into SVN 15317 (2014-03-05). Android Fastboot is a protocol to update the flash and/or boot filesystem on Android devices from a host over USB. The fastboot utility is part of the Android SDK. This support is architecture independent. An abstraction layer has been added to allow devices that do not have USB client support to use another transport mechanism (eg: TCP). We actually have support internally for this TCP transport layer we are planning to send upstream soon (after the internal review has been completed). These patches are available on request. The support has been validated on ARM Versatile Express using USB (and ethernet). A tutorial is available here: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?title=EmbeddedPkg/ AndroidFastBoot Regards, Olivier

12 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [edk2] ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware (SMM / Trustzone similitudes)

by Andrew fish

Eugene and I usually attend, and it is Andrew Sloss running it on the ARM side. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 6, 2013, at 2:14 PM, "Pant, Alok" <Alok.Pant(a)amd.com> wrote: > > >>. But as suggested Eugene, a discussion can be started in the UEFI Forum working groups. ABST (ARM Binding Sub-Team) might be a good place to get the initial feedbacks. > Hi Olivier, > Thanks. Would you be able to bring this to ABST? Or what do you suggest the next steps? > > From: Olivier Martin [mailto:olivier.martin@arm.com] > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 2:05 PM > To: Pant, Alok; Cohen, Eugene; 'Tim Lewis'; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > Subject: RE: ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware (SMM / Trustzone similitudes) > > I have not necessary got the background and the full picture of the industry in term of production firmware compare to some of you. But I have tried to give some answers to your questions. > > # Alok, two directions for Secure Monitor implementation? > The ARM recommendation is everything concerning secure world (EL3, Secure-EL1, Secure-EL0) should be implemented as part of the Trusted Firmware project. > ArmPlatformPkg/Sec has been ported to AArch64 as a temporary solution while waiting for an appropriate Trusted Firmware implementation. There is no plan to have a Secure Monitor implementation (BL31) in Tianocore project. > And I will not accept any patch that implements such feature in Tianocore. The reason is I do not think it is good thing to duplicate code between both projects supported by ARM. And the Trusted Firmware project is a better place for such features. > > # Alok, some implementation starts the Trusted Firmware (in EL3) that launches SEC in El1/2 mode > ArmPlatformPkg/Sec should not run in EL2/EL1. As I said earlier, this is only a temporary solution that should be replaced by the Trusted Firmware project on most ARMv8 platforms. > The Trusted Firmware should launch UEFI that starts with either ArmPlatformPkg/PrePeiCore (if the UEFI firmware in XIP ROM) or ArmPlatformPkg/PrePi (if the UEFI firmware is started from DRAM). > > # Alok, Should secure monitor (bl31) be launched before or during SEC phase? > Secure Monitor (BL31) is one of the first components loaded by the Trusted Firmware. The Secure Monitor will be available before the UEFI firmware starts. > > # Alok/Eugene, Extending the PI SMM specification (Volume 4) for Trustzone > I had a look at the SMM PI spec. I can see a lot of similitude to the UEFI spec (an architecture and implementation agnostic interface). > I can also see some similitude between SMM and Trustzone technology (based on the ARM Secure Extension). And I am sure some SMM drivers will be ported to ARM Secure components (eg: authentification variable for secure boot). > > One notable difference between SMM and ‘Trustzone’ is the initialization. SMM seems to be initialized during the DXE phase while the ARM Secure/Trusted environment is initialized prior to start the Non Secure/Non Trusted environment (including UEFI, u-boot bootloaders). And I do not see this initialization phase to be changed for the reason that the secure environment (Trusted Firmware, Trusted OS, SiP/ODM/OEM secure components) will setup the appropriate hardware privileges and initialize their environment prior to switch to the Non-Secure environment. > > The concept of ‘extending the PI SMM spec to Trustzone’ or 'some form of SMM foundation glue code' is interesting. But it might be difficult to implement in the current situation (most of the solutions seem to be highly integrated without much interoperability). The level of standardization of the Secure/Trusted environment has not reached the API yet. > Obviously, to create a standard an initiative has to be started. I am probably not the best person (due to my limited knowledge of SMM and their real use cases) to start this initiative. But as suggested Eugene, a discussion can be started in the UEFI Forum working groups. ABST (ARM Binding Sub-Team) might be a good place to get the initial feedbacks. > > # Tim, What happens when the secure OS is performing a secure task, but the other OS asks for a shutdown? > As you know PSCI (Power State Coordination Interface) is recommended by ARM for OS Power Management (OSPM). In this case, the Secure world is aware of the shutdown. > But the PSCI spec says 'a Trusted OS must not rely on the use of any notification, and must be resistant to any sudden loss of context'. > Trusted OS vendors are expected to provide a Rich OS driver to invoke their services. There are probably ways to signal a Rich OS shutdown to the Trusted OS using this driver. > > Thanks, > Olivier > > > From: Pant, Alok [mailto:Alok.Pant@amd.com] > Sent: 05 December 2013 18:08 > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; Olivier Martin > Subject: RE: ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware > > Hi Tim & Eugene, > Thanks for the response. I agree current SMM foundation code gas some IA specific and there are various gotchas around SMM entry/exit (sync core , save restore etc, base protocol), however most of SMM foundation is generic and it provides a nice framework of independent driver and interaction via protocol and use common services; granted the DXE SMMipl role of launching and building initial SMM environment does not mesh well on ARM. In parallel there is separate work on ARM trusted firmware and seems there is no common ground between two. I am very must interested to hear how others are attempting to address such feature porting issue and the direction from industry toward runtime EL3 support (single monolithic TF binary+some proprietary form of RTOS “vs.” attempt to integrate UEFI SMM with trusted fw core). I am sure I am not the first one stumbling on this question and seeking how others attempted to solve the above and if this a broader issue that need to be further discussed in this forum. > > Thanks > -Alok > > > > From: Tim Lewis [mailto:tim.lewis@insyde.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:39 AM > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; olivier.martin(a)arm.com > Subject: Re: [edk2] ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware > > Eugene – > > One of the issues for the SMM specification and TZ is the single-threaded nature. While most of ARM’s TrustZone infrastructure can be mapped easily to SMM, the possibility of having cores in TZ and out of TZ simultaneously, or more than one core in TZ at the same time raises some interesting issues (resource contention, etc.) > > Tim > > From: Cohen, Eugene [mailto:eugene@hp.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:29 AM > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; olivier.martin(a)arm.com > Subject: Re: [edk2] ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware > > Alok, > > I agree -- there is value in the modular nature of the PI component approach extending to the ARM trusted firmware environment. > > For SMM this is supported in the PI spec’s SMM core interface specification and in edk2 by the PiSmmCore module and accompanying libraries. Unlike DXE and PEI, the SMM core, at least in name, is IA-specific as it refers to SMM, SMIs, SMRAM, etc. When you look past the names though you can see that the functions it is providing is really architecture independent -- IO protocols, secure memory allocation, protocol management, and handler registration. Given the current IA-specific naming, it would be difficult to recommend that ARM should simply adopt the “SMM” core architecture for the TZ/EL3/SecureMonitor implementation. > > Perhaps this should be raised in the PI working group, specifically “is the SMM core interface spec really an IA-specific concept or something that should become architecture agnostic?” > > Eugene > > From: Pant, Alok [mailto:Alok.Pant@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:42 AM > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; olivier.martin(a)arm.com > Subject: [edk2] ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware > > Changing topic.. > > Hi Oliver, Thanks. I also I have few separate questions wrt to Trusted firmware & UEFI ARM code and hope you/others can help answer > > · It seems there are two direction for SecureMonitor implementation. In one implementation the SEC code (ArmPlatformPkg\Sec\Sec.c) install the secure monitor ( when SEC start in El3) ; In other implementation the Trusted firmware start first install secure monitor (bl31) and launch SEC in El1/2 mode. My question is what is the preferred direction when both are possible? Should secure monitor (bl31) be launched before or during SEC phase? > · Historically in x86 implementation the SMM mode hosts various runtime platform BIOS driver for feature such as authentication variable (for secure boot), platform runtime handing handling etc. EDKII has a good framework for SMM kernel and loading various independent SMM driver and interaction among those driver via protocol etc. In ARM based UEFI/Trusted firmware implementation what may be preferred way to deal with such need. Should all those UEFI SMM driver be ported to Trusted firmware which "today" is in primitive framework compare to SMM EDKII foundation code, or some form of SMM foundation can gel with trusted firmware design to allow independent platform el3 code be developed at independent driver. Curious how others have attempted to solve this problem and if there can be standard way for all of us to adopt here. Before creating yet another method I was hoping to hear from experts on any common ground for such feature implementation > > Thanks again for all your help and comments > -Alok > > -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier Martin [mailto:olivier.martin@arm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:40 AM > To: TigerLiu(a)viatech.com.cn; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [edk2] SEC code support big.LITTLE tech? > > Hi Tiger, > > The ARM recommendation to manage secondary CPUs (the primary CPU is the CPU that runs UEFI and starts your OS kernel) is to use PSCI (Power State Coordination Interface - http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.den0022b/index.h > tml). > PSCI uses SMCs (Secure Memory Calls) to bring up secondary CPUs (CPU_UP / CPU_DOWN). This code runs in Secure World while UEFI runs in Non-Secure World. > > For the story... I started to implement PSCI support in Tianocore source code (in ArmPlatformPkg/Sec). But the EDK2 framework (PCD/Library/INF/FDF > etc) had made the code quite hard to maintain. > So, I wrote a new secure firmware framework project to handle this support. > This firmware is not Open Source (available in binary format for TC2 only). > A new project has been started by ARM Ltd last month. It is an Open Source implementation of the Trusted/Secure Firmware: > https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware > Unfortunately at this stage, 32bit is not supported (only AArch64 is supported). And as far as I know there is no plan to add 32bit support by ARM Ltd in the short term. > > The current ArmPlatformPkg/Sec has support to hold the secondary cores in WFI. But it does not support PSCI. The current support might be sufficient enough for you at this stage. > > Thanks, > Olivier > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TigerLiu(a)viatech.com.cn [mailto:TigerLiu@viatech.com.cn] > > Sent: 04 December 2013 01:51 > > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > > Cc: Olivier Martin > > Subject: [edk2] SEC code support big.LITTLE tech? > > > > Hi, Oliver: > > Does current ArmPlatformPackage's sec code support big.LITTLE tech? > > Such as : > > An ARM SOC --- with 4 Cores Cortex-A15, 4 Cores Cortex-A7 > > > > So, if sec code support big.LITTLE tech, how does it let one core as > > boot strap cpu, others go into wfe(or other sleeping state)? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK > Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. > Download it for free now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK > Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. > Download it for free now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel

12 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

RE: ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware (SMM / Trustzone similitudes)

by Olivier Martin

I have not necessary got the background and the full picture of the industry in term of production firmware compare to some of you. But I have tried to give some answers to your questions. # Alok, two directions for Secure Monitor implementation? The ARM recommendation is everything concerning secure world (EL3, Secure-EL1, Secure-EL0) should be implemented as part of the Trusted Firmware project. ArmPlatformPkg/Sec has been ported to AArch64 as a temporary solution while waiting for an appropriate Trusted Firmware implementation. There is no plan to have a Secure Monitor implementation (BL31) in Tianocore project. And I will not accept any patch that implements such feature in Tianocore. The reason is I do not think it is good thing to duplicate code between both projects supported by ARM. And the Trusted Firmware project is a better place for such features. # Alok, some implementation starts the Trusted Firmware (in EL3) that launches SEC in El1/2 mode ArmPlatformPkg/Sec should not run in EL2/EL1. As I said earlier, this is only a temporary solution that should be replaced by the Trusted Firmware project on most ARMv8 platforms. The Trusted Firmware should launch UEFI that starts with either ArmPlatformPkg/PrePeiCore (if the UEFI firmware in XIP ROM) or ArmPlatformPkg/PrePi (if the UEFI firmware is started from DRAM). # Alok, Should secure monitor (bl31) be launched before or during SEC phase? Secure Monitor (BL31) is one of the first components loaded by the Trusted Firmware. The Secure Monitor will be available before the UEFI firmware starts. # Alok/Eugene, Extending the PI SMM specification (Volume 4) for Trustzone I had a look at the SMM PI spec. I can see a lot of similitude to the UEFI spec (an architecture and implementation agnostic interface). I can also see some similitude between SMM and Trustzone technology (based on the ARM Secure Extension). And I am sure some SMM drivers will be ported to ARM Secure components (eg: authentification variable for secure boot). One notable difference between SMM and 'Trustzone' is the initialization. SMM seems to be initialized during the DXE phase while the ARM Secure/Trusted environment is initialized prior to start the Non Secure/Non Trusted environment (including UEFI, u-boot bootloaders). And I do not see this initialization phase to be changed for the reason that the secure environment (Trusted Firmware, Trusted OS, SiP/ODM/OEM secure components) will setup the appropriate hardware privileges and initialize their environment prior to switch to the Non-Secure environment. The concept of 'extending the PI SMM spec to Trustzone' or 'some form of SMM foundation glue code' is interesting. But it might be difficult to implement in the current situation (most of the solutions seem to be highly integrated without much interoperability). The level of standardization of the Secure/Trusted environment has not reached the API yet. Obviously, to create a standard an initiative has to be started. I am probably not the best person (due to my limited knowledge of SMM and their real use cases) to start this initiative. But as suggested Eugene, a discussion can be started in the UEFI Forum working groups. ABST (ARM Binding Sub-Team) might be a good place to get the initial feedbacks. # Tim, What happens when the secure OS is performing a secure task, but the other OS asks for a shutdown? As you know PSCI (Power State Coordination Interface) is recommended by ARM for OS Power Management (OSPM). In this case, the Secure world is aware of the shutdown. But the PSCI spec says 'a Trusted OS must not rely on the use of any notification, and must be resistant to any sudden loss of context'. Trusted OS vendors are expected to provide a Rich OS driver to invoke their services. There are probably ways to signal a Rich OS shutdown to the Trusted OS using this driver. Thanks, Olivier From: Pant, Alok [mailto:Alok.Pant@amd.com] Sent: 05 December 2013 18:08 To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; Olivier Martin Subject: RE: ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware Hi Tim & Eugene, Thanks for the response. I agree current SMM foundation code gas some IA specific and there are various gotchas around SMM entry/exit (sync core , save restore etc, base protocol), however most of SMM foundation is generic and it provides a nice framework of independent driver and interaction via protocol and use common services; granted the DXE SMMipl role of launching and building initial SMM environment does not mesh well on ARM. In parallel there is separate work on ARM trusted firmware and seems there is no common ground between two. I am very must interested to hear how others are attempting to address such feature porting issue and the direction from industry toward runtime EL3 support (single monolithic TF binary+some proprietary form of RTOS "vs." attempt to integrate UEFI SMM with trusted fw core). I am sure I am not the first one stumbling on this question and seeking how others attempted to solve the above and if this a broader issue that need to be further discussed in this forum. Thanks -Alok From: Tim Lewis [mailto:tim.lewis@insyde.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:39 AM To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; olivier.martin(a)arm.com Subject: Re: [edk2] ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware Eugene - One of the issues for the SMM specification and TZ is the single-threaded nature. While most of ARM's TrustZone infrastructure can be mapped easily to SMM, the possibility of having cores in TZ and out of TZ simultaneously, or more than one core in TZ at the same time raises some interesting issues (resource contention, etc.) Tim From: Cohen, Eugene [mailto:eugene@hp.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 9:29 AM To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; olivier.martin(a)arm.com Subject: Re: [edk2] ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware Alok, I agree -- there is value in the modular nature of the PI component approach extending to the ARM trusted firmware environment. For SMM this is supported in the PI spec's SMM core interface specification and in edk2 by the PiSmmCore module and accompanying libraries. Unlike DXE and PEI, the SMM core, at least in name, is IA-specific as it refers to SMM, SMIs, SMRAM, etc. When you look past the names though you can see that the functions it is providing is really architecture independent -- IO protocols, secure memory allocation, protocol management, and handler registration. Given the current IA-specific naming, it would be difficult to recommend that ARM should simply adopt the "SMM" core architecture for the TZ/EL3/SecureMonitor implementation. Perhaps this should be raised in the PI working group, specifically "is the SMM core interface spec really an IA-specific concept or something that should become architecture agnostic?" Eugene From: Pant, Alok [mailto:Alok.Pant@amd.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:42 AM To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; olivier.martin(a)arm.com Subject: [edk2] ARM UEFI BIOS & Trusted firmware Changing topic.. Hi Oliver, Thanks. I also I have few separate questions wrt to Trusted firmware & UEFI ARM code and hope you/others can help answer . It seems there are two direction for SecureMonitor implementation. In one implementation the SEC code (ArmPlatformPkg\Sec\Sec.c) install the secure monitor ( when SEC start in El3) ; In other implementation the Trusted firmware start first install secure monitor (bl31) and launch SEC in El1/2 mode. My question is what is the preferred direction when both are possible? Should secure monitor (bl31) be launched before or during SEC phase? . Historically in x86 implementation the SMM mode hosts various runtime platform BIOS driver for feature such as authentication variable (for secure boot), platform runtime handing handling etc. EDKII has a good framework for SMM kernel and loading various independent SMM driver and interaction among those driver via protocol etc. In ARM based UEFI/Trusted firmware implementation what may be preferred way to deal with such need. Should all those UEFI SMM driver be ported to Trusted firmware which "today" is in primitive framework compare to SMM EDKII foundation code, or some form of SMM foundation can gel with trusted firmware design to allow independent platform el3 code be developed at independent driver. Curious how others have attempted to solve this problem and if there can be standard way for all of us to adopt here. Before creating yet another method I was hoping to hear from experts on any common ground for such feature implementation Thanks again for all your help and comments -Alok -----Original Message----- From: Olivier Martin [mailto:olivier.martin@arm.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:40 AM To: TigerLiu(a)viatech.com.cn; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [edk2] SEC code support big.LITTLE tech? Hi Tiger, The ARM recommendation to manage secondary CPUs (the primary CPU is the CPU that runs UEFI and starts your OS kernel) is to use PSCI (Power State Coordination Interface - http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.den0022b/index.h tml). PSCI uses SMCs (Secure Memory Calls) to bring up secondary CPUs (CPU_UP / CPU_DOWN). This code runs in Secure World while UEFI runs in Non-Secure World. For the story... I started to implement PSCI support in Tianocore source code (in ArmPlatformPkg/Sec). But the EDK2 framework (PCD/Library/INF/FDF etc) had made the code quite hard to maintain. So, I wrote a new secure firmware framework project to handle this support. This firmware is not Open Source (available in binary format for TC2 only). A new project has been started by ARM Ltd last month. It is an Open Source implementation of the Trusted/Secure Firmware: https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware Unfortunately at this stage, 32bit is not supported (only AArch64 is supported). And as far as I know there is no plan to add 32bit support by ARM Ltd in the short term. The current ArmPlatformPkg/Sec has support to hold the secondary cores in WFI. But it does not support PSCI. The current support might be sufficient enough for you at this stage. Thanks, Olivier > -----Original Message----- > From: TigerLiu(a)viatech.com.cn [mailto:TigerLiu@viatech.com.cn] > Sent: 04 December 2013 01:51 > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: Olivier Martin > Subject: [edk2] SEC code support big.LITTLE tech? > > Hi, Oliver: > Does current ArmPlatformPackage's sec code support big.LITTLE tech? > Such as : > An ARM SOC --- with 4 Cores Cortex-A15, 4 Cores Cortex-A7 > > So, if sec code support big.LITTLE tech, how does it let one core as > boot strap cpu, others go into wfe(or other sleeping state)? > > Best wishes, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631 <http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktr k> &iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel

12 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

Re: ARM/BDS: skip initrd if not found

by Ryan Harkin

On 26 November 2013 11:43, Olivier Martin <olivier.martin(a)arm.com> wrote: > Hi Ryan/Leif, > > > > I was initially happy enough with the solution #4 and wanted to push your > change to SVN. And yes, I can only be agree on the fact the EFI stub is the > way we want to go to boot Linux kernel on a UEFI system. > > But I am not sure how the EFI stub will solve your problem. > > Even with the EFI stub, you will still need to change you Continuous > Integration Infrastructure to start the Linux kernel with different > parameters for Android/Ubuntu/OpenEmbedded > > > > So, it looks the only solution is #1. > > I do not mind to push your patch, but that will not help you in the future > neither. > I don't think ARM/BDS (and this patch) will be at all related to how the boards are booted by whatever LEG use in the future. I think the intention is that LEG provide something to *replace* ARM/BDS, not something that uses it. So I guess my patch is only relevant for those who use ARM/BDS. > > > Thanks, > > Olivier > > > > > > From: Ryan Harkin [mailto:ryan.harkin@linaro.org] > Sent: 19 November 2013 11:23 > To: Leif Lindholm > Cc: boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; > Olivier Martin; Steven Kinney > Subject: Re: ARM/BDS: skip initrd if not found > > > > > > > > On 19 November 2013 10:34, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm(a)linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Ryan, > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 08:30:25AM +0000, Ryan Harkin wrote: > > Hi Olivier/Steve/Leif/whoever is interested, > > > > I have a problem I'm trying to solve and I don't think there is a proper > > solution using the current ARM BDS. > > > > > Basically, some of Linaro's releases are failing to boot "out of the > > box" due to incorrect default BDS config. The default assumes that > the > > > image has an initrd. > > > > Android (the main focus of our releases) and Ubuntu images use an initrd. > > OpenEmbedded images do not. > > > > I'd like a single UEFI binary that can work on all three without > > reconfiguration. > > > > The obvious solutions are: > > 1) there is no default config that always works and the user should > configure > > the board > > themselves each time they want to boot a different image type. > > Our LAVA automated test environment and people like myself who boot > test > > many images > > daily don't favour this option. > > > > 2) change OpenEmbedded to use an initrd > > It's not my image to change and the owners don't want to do that > because > > it's also wrong. > > > > 3) Have different UEFI binaries for each image type > > This isn't ideal because I (and LAVA) would be forever reflashing > UEFI. > > > > 4) Make BDS continue if it can't load the initrd > > This isn't ideal because if there is no initrd, it could be for a bad > > reason. By continuing, we > > aren't giving the user the change to immediately correct the config. > > However, the likelihood of the initrd being completely missing, whilst > a > > valid kernel and FDT > > is provided seems slim. If it is missing, it's most likely on > purpose. > > > > Of the options above, I prefer #4 and have provided a patch below for > > discussion. I suspect that if it's not going to cause other problems, it > could > > be like my other BDS hacks, fixes and improvements and only live in the > Linaro > > tree, which would be fine with me too. > > > > Opinions on a way forward and/or this patch? > > Medium-term, I would say that the correct thing to do will be to simply > use the UEFI stub loader version of the kernel image. But you may not > want to take on the tediousness of having to sync this not-yet-upstream > patchset across the various kernel branches things will build from for > each new release until this code does go upstream? > > > > I agree, moving to a proper boot solution is the end goal. But a lot of > that end-goal is out of my control/domain, so I'm hacking what I have to > make it more usable until the cool stuff hits mainline. > > > > I would say that the solution your patch introduces is wrong, but it is > less wrong than the current situation - so I have no fundamental > objection. > > > > I agree, it's not ideal, but as you say, it's less wrong. > > > > If we wanted to keep the built-in Linux loader, I would say that the > correct fix would be to add a "has initrd" property, or a NULL string > chack for the path. But we don't, so we shouldn't spend time trying to > to improve a way too old stop-gap solution. > > > > The initrd can be configured out in the default config, so UEFI does not > attempt to even load it. However, in that case, a single UEFI binary's > default config will fail to load an Android or Ubuntu image, because they > need an initrd. > > Really, I'm working around the fact that we cannot provide a config to BDS; > the config either has to be initialised by the UEFI binary or hand edited > by > the user. If we had that feature, each image (Android, Ubuntu, OE) could > provide a config that it knew would work. > > > > > / > Leif > > p.s. > The built-in Linux loader delenda est! > > > > Yes please :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > boot-architecture mailing list > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture >

12 years, 4 months

2
2
0 0

ARM/BDS: skip initrd if not found

by Ryan Harkin

Hi Olivier/Steve/Leif/whoever is interested, I have a problem I'm trying to solve and I don't think there is a proper solution using the current ARM BDS. Basically, some of Linaro's releases are failing to boot "out of the box" due to incorrect default BDS config. The default assumes that the image has an initrd. Android (the main focus of our releases) and Ubuntu images use an initrd. OpenEmbedded images do not. I'd like a single UEFI binary that can work on all three without reconfiguration. The obvious solutions are: 1) there is no default config that always works and the user should configure the board themselves each time they want to boot a different image type. Our LAVA automated test environment and people like myself who boot test many images daily don't favour this option. 2) change OpenEmbedded to use an initrd It's not my image to change and the owners don't want to do that because it's also wrong. 3) Have different UEFI binaries for each image type This isn't ideal because I (and LAVA) would be forever reflashing UEFI. 4) Make BDS continue if it can't load the initrd This isn't ideal because if there is no initrd, it could be for a bad reason. By continuing, we aren't giving the user the change to immediately correct the config. However, the likelihood of the initrd being completely missing, whilst a valid kernel and FDT is provided seems slim. If it is missing, it's most likely on purpose. Of the options above, I prefer #4 and have provided a patch below for discussion. I suspect that if it's not going to cause other problems, it could be like my other BDS hacks, fixes and improvements and only live in the Linaro tree, which would be fine with me too. Opinions on a way forward and/or this patch? Regards, Ryan. note: the patch looks a little larger than it should because I had to indent the section beginning with the comment "// Check if the initrd is a uInitrd", although that section is unmodified otherwise. >From aaec8cb3f386a9a128f57a2d0fcbb4396a101ec4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin(a)linaro.org> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:10:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] ARM/BDS: skip initrd if not found When loading a Linux image, if the initrd is not found, we will display an error, but attempt to load the kernel anyway. Previous behaviour dropped the user back to the menu, thus allowing them to update the config. However, this does not suit booting in automated environments where test images may or may not have an initrd. Example, Ubuntu and Android images require an initrd; OpenEmbedded images do not. Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0 Signed-off-by: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin(a)linaro.org> --- ArmPkg/Library/BdsLib/Arm/BdsLinuxLoader.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/ArmPkg/Library/BdsLib/Arm/BdsLinuxLoader.c b/ArmPkg/Library/BdsLib/Arm/BdsLinuxLoader.c index d0eb075..d2a161a 100644 --- a/ArmPkg/Library/BdsLib/Arm/BdsLinuxLoader.c +++ b/ArmPkg/Library/BdsLib/Arm/BdsLinuxLoader.c @@ -258,19 +258,20 @@ BdsBootLinuxFdt ( Status = BdsLoadImage (InitrdDevicePath, AllocateAnyPages, &InitrdImageBase, &InitrdImageBaseSize); } if (EFI_ERROR(Status)) { - Print (L"ERROR: Did not find initrd image.\n"); - goto EXIT_FREE_LINUX; - } - - // Check if the initrd is a uInitrd - if (*(UINT32*)((UINTN)InitrdImageBase) == LINUX_UIMAGE_SIGNATURE) { - // Skip the 64-byte image header - InitrdImage = (EFI_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS)((UINTN)InitrdImageBase + 64); - InitrdImageSize = InitrdImageBaseSize - 64; - } else { - InitrdImage = InitrdImageBase; - InitrdImageSize = InitrdImageBaseSize; + Print (L"ERROR: Did not find initrd image, you may need to update your config. Attempting to continue without it.\n"); + InitrdImageBase = 0; } + else { + // Check if the initrd is a uInitrd + if (*(UINT32*)((UINTN)InitrdImageBase) == LINUX_UIMAGE_SIGNATURE) { + // Skip the 64-byte image header + InitrdImage = (EFI_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS)((UINTN)InitrdImageBase + 64); + InitrdImageSize = InitrdImageBaseSize - 64; + } else { + InitrdImage = InitrdImageBase; + InitrdImageSize = InitrdImageBaseSize; + } + } } // Load the FDT binary from a device path. The FDT will be reloaded later to a more appropriate location for the Linux kernel. @@ -299,7 +300,6 @@ EXIT_FREE_INITRD: gBS->FreePages (InitrdImageBase, EFI_SIZE_TO_PAGES (InitrdImageBaseSize)); } -EXIT_FREE_LINUX: gBS->FreePages (LinuxImage, EFI_SIZE_TO_PAGES (LinuxImageSize)); return Status; -- 1.7.9.5

12 years, 4 months

3
3
0 0

SerialPrint not working in DxeServicesLib.c

by Bhupesh Sharma

Hi List, I am experiencing a Data Abort inside function 'GetSectionFromAnyFv' in file 'DxeServicesLib.c' on my ARMv7 UEFI platform. To debug the same I added some print messages like: /* Added for debugging */ CHAR8 Buffer1[100]; UINTN CharCount; CharCount = AsciiSPrint (Buffer1,sizeof (Buffer1),"Inside Func\n\r"); SerialPortWrite ((UINT8 *) Buffer1, CharCount); And also something like: SerialPrint ("Inside Func\n\r"); I have included: #include <Library/PrintLib.h> #include <Library/SerialPortLib.h> and defined: #define SerialPrint(txt) SerialPortWrite ((UINT8*)(txt), AsciiStrLen(txt)+1); I still cannot see any debug prints on the UART (placed right after the entry point of 'GetSectionFromAnyFv' function). Debugger (DS-5) suggests that the crash is inside 'GetSectionFromAnyFv' itself. I get the UEFI firmware <version xx built at xx on xx) and Data Abort Exception PC at xx prints on the console, but no prints from 'DxeServicesLib.c' Any pointers to what I may be missing here. Regards, Bhupesh

12 years, 5 months

2
1
0 0

UEFI SCT few queries

by Prabhakar Kushwaha

Hi List, I am new to UEFI and exploring about SCT. I have very basic question regarding SCT. 1) In order to use SCT in an organization, do we require any special license? 2) Looks like SCT compliance testing is only internal to an organization. We don't require to publish its details outside of the organization? 3) If anyone want to contribute to SCT test cases. Which forum/list he/she can be used? Please guide me. Regards, Prabhakar

12 years, 5 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols}

by Prabhakar Kushwaha

Hi Oliver, at very early stage UEFI firmware is present in DRAM. with DDR mapped from 0x90000000 size 512MB. while running source Z:\....\cmd_load_symbols.py -f (0x90001000,0x20000000) -a -v, I am getting following error Add symbols of /home/<...>/edk2/MyBuild/Board/DEBUG_ARMGCC/ARM/ArmPlatformPkg/PrePi/PeiUniCore/DEBUG/ArmPlatformPrePiUniCore.dll at 0x90001180 Warning: not possible to load symbols from /home/..../edk2/Build/MyBoard/DEBUG_ARMGCC/ARM/ArmPlatformPkg/PrePi/PeiUniCore/DEBUG/ArmPlatformPrePiUniCore.dll at 0x90001180 Note: no symbols have been found in System Memory (possible cause: the UEFI permanent memory has been installed yet) Also FDF file has following entries [FD.MyBoard_EFI] BaseAddress = 0x90001000|gArmTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFdBaseAddress #The base address of the DDR Device. Size = 0x20000000|gArmTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFdSize #The size in bytes of the DDR Device ErasePolarity = 1 BlockSize = 0x00001000 NumBlocks = 0x20000 Regards, Prabhakar On 10/23/2013 03:22 PM, Olivier Martin wrote: > To parse your FV file (embedded in your FD file), you can use > './BaseTools/BinWrappers/PosixLike/VolInfo <location of your FV file>' > > If you want to debug the early stage of your UEFI boot process, you can only > use (you do not need -m (...,...)): > source edk2/ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/Ds5/cmd_load_symbols.py -f (..,...) -a -v > > At the early stage of the boot, the UEFI firmware has not loaded its > binaries into DRAM yet. > The UEFI System Table will not be found in System Memory. > > Where your UEFI firmware lives when started? In DRAM or in Flash/ROM memory? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 [mailto:B45370@freescale.com] >> Sent: 23 October 2013 06:33 >> To: Olivier Martin; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'Andrew Fish' >> Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; Kushwaha >> Prabhakar-B32579 >> Subject: RE: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} >> >> Hi Olivier, >> >> I tried to use the DS-5 scripts, but landed in some issues, like: >> "System table not found in System Memory". >> >> It seems there is some issue with the .FD gets generated for my >> BoardPkg. >> >> I am also now trying to understand if there is some documentation/tool >> available that >> can parse my .FD and .FV files and can tell me about the sections in >> this particular output >> file. For e.g. something like 'readelf -a XXX.ELF' produces as an >> output. >> >> Also I am using the following method to build the .FD to allow >> debugging of the source >> using the DS5 scripts: >> - export EDK2_DSC, EDK2_TOOLCHAIN, EDK2_ARCH, EDK2_BUILD. >> >> - Run 'make -f ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/Makefile' >> >> - This will generate a .FD specific to my Board Pkg in >> 'Build/Board_Pkg_Name/DEBUG_ARMGCC/..' >> >> - Load this .FD using the DS5 and then try to load source symbols >> using: >> source edk2/ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/Ds5/cmd_load_symbols.py -f (..,...) >> -m (..,...) -a >> >> - This gives me an error: >> "System table not found in System Memory". >> >> Any pointers on the above two points.. >> >> Regards, >> Bhupesh >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: boot-architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto:boot- >>> architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Martin >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:27 PM >>> To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'Andrew Fish' >>> Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; Kushwaha >>> Prabhakar-B32579 >>> Subject: RE: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} >>> >>> Hi Bhupesh, >>> Yes, if you are using ARM DS-5, this is the wikipage to look at to >> setup >>> your environment to debug UEFI. Let me know if you have issue. >>> Regards, >>> Olivier >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 [mailto:B45370@freescale.com] >>>> Sent: 22 October 2013 07:56 >>>> To: 'Andrew Fish'; 'edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net' >>>> Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; 'boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org'; Kushwaha >>>> Prabhakar-B32579 >>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: boot-architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto:boot- >>>>> architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Fish >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:07 AM >>>>> To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; 'boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org'; >> Kushwaha >>>>> Prabhakar-B32579 >>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 21, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 >>>>> <B45370(a)freescale.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [Resending as I got a 'You must be subscribed to post messages >> to >>>> this >>>>>> mailing list' message from edk2 list] >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi List, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am new to UEFI and am trying to debug my UEFI ported code >> (from >>>> u- >>>>> boot) on a ARMv7 based SoC. >>>>>> I am able to do some basic debugging of the ARM CPU init code >>>>>> using >>>> a >>>>> DS-5 debugger attached to the board. >>>>>> I see that the ported code crashes somewhere while making a >>>> transition >>>>> from Sec to PI phase. >>>>>> However, I can only verify this by seeing instruction level >>>>>> disassembly. I cannot figure out a way to load the source code >>>> using >>>>> the DS-5 debugger. >>>>>> I am used to seeing ELF files which have the debug information >> and >>>>> which can be loaded via the debugger. >>>>>> Using the 'file' command I cannot find any ELF file in the >> output >>>>>> directory 'Build/..'. The FV and FD files don't seem to be ELF >>>> files as >>>>> well. >>>>> FD is short for Flash Device. So it is usually the layout of the >> ROM. >>>> You >>>>> could have multiple ROMs, but the most common thing is to just >> have >>>>> a single FD. >>>>> FV is a Firmware Volume. Basically a simple Flash Filesystem that >>>> allows >>>>> files, named by GUIDs to be discovered. >>>>> >>>>> EFI is a collection of relocatable PE/COFF images, and in general >> an >>>> INF >>>>> file (no for a library) in your project maps to a PE/COFF file >>>> getting >>>>> generated. >>>>> >>>>> It can vary by compiler, but it is common for the *.dll file to >> be >>>> the >>>>> native image with the debug info. So that is the file you want to >>>> load >>>>> symbols for. >>>>> >>>>> There are various schemes on how to do this. Some platforms print >>>>> out debug messages that map into the commands you need to load >>> symbols. >>>> Some >>>>> platforms have scripts that can load symbols. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry I don't remember the latest recommendation on which scheme >> to >>>> use >>>>> for your platform? Try looking at the *.Fv.map file as I think it >>>>> has info about how to load symbols. You would need a script to >>>>> convert >>>> this >>>>> into some format the DS-5 understands. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe the scripts in >>>>> >> https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2/ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/ >>>> D >>>> s5 >>>>> / are what you are looking for? >>>> Many thanks Andrew. It seems the DS5 scripts will work for me. I >> found >>>> the wiki for the same here: >>>> >> http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?title=ArmPkg >>>> / >>>> Ds5 >>>> >>>> I will try to debug the target using these scripts and get back >> with >>>> my results. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bhupesh >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Fish >>>>> >>>>>> Any pointers to which ELF file is generated while compiling a >> UEFI >>>>>> BoardPkg and how it can be loaded via the debugger. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your help. >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Bhupesh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >>>>>> - >>>> --- >>>>>> -------- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel >>>>>> webinars can help you accelerate application performance. >>>>>> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get >>>>>> the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See >>>> abstracts >>>>>> and register > >>>>>> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.c >>>>>> lktrk _______________________________________________ >>>>>> edk2-devel mailing list >>>>>> edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> boot-architecture mailing list >>>>> boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org >>>>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >>>> - >>>> ------- >>>> October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help >>>> you accelerate application performance. >>>> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the >>>> most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See >> abstracts >>>> and register > >>>> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.c >>>> l >>>> ktrk >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> edk2-devel mailing list >>>> edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> boot-architecture mailing list >>> boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org >>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture >> > > > >

12 years, 6 months

2
1
0 0

RE: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols}

by Olivier Martin

To parse your FV file (embedded in your FD file), you can use './BaseTools/BinWrappers/PosixLike/VolInfo <location of your FV file>' If you want to debug the early stage of your UEFI boot process, you can only use (you do not need -m (...,...)): source edk2/ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/Ds5/cmd_load_symbols.py -f (..,...) -a -v At the early stage of the boot, the UEFI firmware has not loaded its binaries into DRAM yet. The UEFI System Table will not be found in System Memory. Where your UEFI firmware lives when started? In DRAM or in Flash/ROM memory? > -----Original Message----- > From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 [mailto:B45370@freescale.com] > Sent: 23 October 2013 06:33 > To: Olivier Martin; edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'Andrew Fish' > Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; Kushwaha > Prabhakar-B32579 > Subject: RE: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} > > Hi Olivier, > > I tried to use the DS-5 scripts, but landed in some issues, like: > "System table not found in System Memory". > > It seems there is some issue with the .FD gets generated for my > BoardPkg. > > I am also now trying to understand if there is some documentation/tool > available that > can parse my .FD and .FV files and can tell me about the sections in > this particular output > file. For e.g. something like 'readelf -a XXX.ELF' produces as an > output. > > Also I am using the following method to build the .FD to allow > debugging of the source > using the DS5 scripts: > - export EDK2_DSC, EDK2_TOOLCHAIN, EDK2_ARCH, EDK2_BUILD. > > - Run 'make -f ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/Makefile' > > - This will generate a .FD specific to my Board Pkg in > 'Build/Board_Pkg_Name/DEBUG_ARMGCC/..' > > - Load this .FD using the DS5 and then try to load source symbols > using: > source edk2/ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/Ds5/cmd_load_symbols.py -f (..,...) > -m (..,...) -a > > - This gives me an error: > "System table not found in System Memory". > > Any pointers on the above two points.. > > Regards, > Bhupesh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: boot-architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto:boot- > > architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Martin > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:27 PM > > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; 'Andrew Fish' > > Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org; Kushwaha > > Prabhakar-B32579 > > Subject: RE: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} > > > > Hi Bhupesh, > > Yes, if you are using ARM DS-5, this is the wikipage to look at to > setup > > your environment to debug UEFI. Let me know if you have issue. > > Regards, > > Olivier > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 [mailto:B45370@freescale.com] > > > Sent: 22 October 2013 07:56 > > > To: 'Andrew Fish'; 'edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net' > > > Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; 'boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org'; Kushwaha > > > Prabhakar-B32579 > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: boot-architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto:boot- > > > > architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Fish > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:07 AM > > > > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > > > > Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; 'boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org'; > Kushwaha > > > > Prabhakar-B32579 > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 > > > > <B45370(a)freescale.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [Resending as I got a 'You must be subscribed to post messages > to > > > this > > > > > mailing list' message from edk2 list] > > > > > > > > > > Hi List, > > > > > > > > > > I am new to UEFI and am trying to debug my UEFI ported code > (from > > > u- > > > > boot) on a ARMv7 based SoC. > > > > > I am able to do some basic debugging of the ARM CPU init code > > > > > using > > > a > > > > DS-5 debugger attached to the board. > > > > > > > > > > I see that the ported code crashes somewhere while making a > > > transition > > > > from Sec to PI phase. > > > > > However, I can only verify this by seeing instruction level > > > > > disassembly. I cannot figure out a way to load the source code > > > using > > > > the DS-5 debugger. > > > > > > > > > > I am used to seeing ELF files which have the debug information > and > > > > which can be loaded via the debugger. > > > > > Using the 'file' command I cannot find any ELF file in the > output > > > > > directory 'Build/..'. The FV and FD files don't seem to be ELF > > > files as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > FD is short for Flash Device. So it is usually the layout of the > ROM. > > > You > > > > could have multiple ROMs, but the most common thing is to just > have > > > > a single FD. > > > > FV is a Firmware Volume. Basically a simple Flash Filesystem that > > > allows > > > > files, named by GUIDs to be discovered. > > > > > > > > EFI is a collection of relocatable PE/COFF images, and in general > an > > > INF > > > > file (no for a library) in your project maps to a PE/COFF file > > > getting > > > > generated. > > > > > > > > It can vary by compiler, but it is common for the *.dll file to > be > > > the > > > > native image with the debug info. So that is the file you want to > > > load > > > > symbols for. > > > > > > > > There are various schemes on how to do this. Some platforms print > > > > out debug messages that map into the commands you need to load > > symbols. > > > Some > > > > platforms have scripts that can load symbols. > > > > > > > > Sorry I don't remember the latest recommendation on which scheme > to > > > use > > > > for your platform? Try looking at the *.Fv.map file as I think it > > > > has info about how to load symbols. You would need a script to > > > > convert > > > this > > > > into some format the DS-5 understands. > > > > > > > > Maybe the scripts in > > > > > > > > https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2/ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/ > > > D > > > s5 > > > > / are what you are looking for? > > > > > > Many thanks Andrew. It seems the DS5 scripts will work for me. I > found > > > the wiki for the same here: > > > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?title=ArmPkg > > > / > > > Ds5 > > > > > > I will try to debug the target using these scripts and get back > with > > > my results. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bhupesh > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Andrew Fish > > > > > > > > > Any pointers to which ELF file is generated while compiling a > UEFI > > > > > BoardPkg and how it can be loaded via the debugger. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Bhupesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > > > - > > > --- > > > > > -------- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel > > > > > webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > > > > > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get > > > > > the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See > > > abstracts > > > > > and register > > > > > > > > > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.c > > > > > lktrk _______________________________________________ > > > > > edk2-devel mailing list > > > > > edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > boot-architecture mailing list > > > > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > > > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > - > > > ------- > > > October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help > > > you accelerate application performance. > > > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the > > > most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See > abstracts > > > and register > > > > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.c > > > l > > > ktrk > > > _______________________________________________ > > > edk2-devel mailing list > > > edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > boot-architecture mailing list > > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture > >

12 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

RE: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols}

by Olivier Martin

Hi Bhupesh, Yes, if you are using ARM DS-5, this is the wikipage to look at to setup your environment to debug UEFI. Let me know if you have issue. Regards, Olivier > -----Original Message----- > From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 [mailto:B45370@freescale.com] > Sent: 22 October 2013 07:56 > To: 'Andrew Fish'; 'edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net' > Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; 'boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org'; Kushwaha > Prabhakar-B32579 > Subject: Re: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: boot-architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto:boot- > > architecture-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Fish > > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:07 AM > > To: edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > > Cc: 'Kim Phillips'; 'boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org'; Kushwaha > > Prabhakar-B32579 > > Subject: Re: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols} > > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 > > <B45370(a)freescale.com> wrote: > > > > > [Resending as I got a 'You must be subscribed to post messages to > this > > > mailing list' message from edk2 list] > > > > > > Hi List, > > > > > > I am new to UEFI and am trying to debug my UEFI ported code (from > u- > > boot) on a ARMv7 based SoC. > > > I am able to do some basic debugging of the ARM CPU init code using > a > > DS-5 debugger attached to the board. > > > > > > I see that the ported code crashes somewhere while making a > transition > > from Sec to PI phase. > > > However, I can only verify this by seeing instruction level > > > disassembly. I cannot figure out a way to load the source code > using > > the DS-5 debugger. > > > > > > I am used to seeing ELF files which have the debug information and > > which can be loaded via the debugger. > > > Using the 'file' command I cannot find any ELF file in the output > > > directory 'Build/..'. The FV and FD files don't seem to be ELF > files as > > well. > > > > > > > FD is short for Flash Device. So it is usually the layout of the ROM. > You > > could have multiple ROMs, but the most common thing is to just have a > > single FD. > > FV is a Firmware Volume. Basically a simple Flash Filesystem that > allows > > files, named by GUIDs to be discovered. > > > > EFI is a collection of relocatable PE/COFF images, and in general an > INF > > file (no for a library) in your project maps to a PE/COFF file > getting > > generated. > > > > It can vary by compiler, but it is common for the *.dll file to be > the > > native image with the debug info. So that is the file you want to > load > > symbols for. > > > > There are various schemes on how to do this. Some platforms print out > > debug messages that map into the commands you need to load symbols. > Some > > platforms have scripts that can load symbols. > > > > Sorry I don't remember the latest recommendation on which scheme to > use > > for your platform? Try looking at the *.Fv.map file as I think it has > > info about how to load symbols. You would need a script to convert > this > > into some format the DS-5 understands. > > > > Maybe the scripts in > > > https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2/ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/D > s5 > > / are what you are looking for? > > Many thanks Andrew. It seems the DS5 scripts will work for me. I found > the wiki > for the same here: > http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?title=ArmPkg/ > Ds5 > > I will try to debug the target using these scripts and get back with my > results. > > Regards, > Bhupesh > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrew Fish > > > > > Any pointers to which ELF file is generated while compiling a UEFI > > > BoardPkg and how it can be loaded via the debugger. > > > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > Regards, > > > Bhupesh > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > -------- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars > > > can help you accelerate application performance. > > > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the > > > most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See > abstracts > > > and register > > > > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.c > > > lktrk _______________________________________________ > > > edk2-devel mailing list > > > edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > boot-architecture mailing list > > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the > most from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and > register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.cl > ktrk > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel

12 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [edk2] Debugging Sec and PI phases {Source symbols}

by Andrew Fish

On Oct 21, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 <B45370(a)freescale.com> wrote: > [Resending as I got a 'You must be subscribed to post messages to this mailing list' message from edk2 list] > > Hi List, > > I am new to UEFI and am trying to debug my UEFI ported code (from u-boot) on a ARMv7 based SoC. > I am able to do some basic debugging of the ARM CPU init code using a DS-5 debugger attached to the board. > > I see that the ported code crashes somewhere while making a transition from Sec to PI phase. > However, I can only verify this by seeing instruction level disassembly. I cannot figure out a way to load > the source code using the DS-5 debugger. > > I am used to seeing ELF files which have the debug information and which can be loaded via the debugger. > Using the 'file' command I cannot find any ELF file in the output directory 'Build/..'. The FV and FD > files don't seem to be ELF files as well. > FD is short for Flash Device. So it is usually the layout of the ROM. You could have multiple ROMs, but the most common thing is to just have a single FD. FV is a Firmware Volume. Basically a simple Flash Filesystem that allows files, named by GUIDs to be discovered. EFI is a collection of relocatable PE/COFF images, and in general an INF file (no for a library) in your project maps to a PE/COFF file getting generated. It can vary by compiler, but it is common for the *.dll file to be the native image with the debug info. So that is the file you want to load symbols for. There are various schemes on how to do this. Some platforms print out debug messages that map into the commands you need to load symbols. Some platforms have scripts that can load symbols. Sorry I don't remember the latest recommendation on which scheme to use for your platform? Try looking at the *.Fv.map file as I think it has info about how to load symbols. You would need a script to convert this into some format the DS-5 understands. Maybe the scripts in https://svn.code.sf.net/p/edk2/code/trunk/edk2/ArmPlatformPkg/Scripts/Ds5/ are what you are looking for? Thanks, Andrew Fish > Any pointers to which ELF file is generated while compiling a UEFI BoardPkg and how it can be loaded > via the debugger. > > Thanks for your help. > Regards, > Bhupesh > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel

12 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Aarch64 patches for uefi-next.git

by Ryan Harkin

Hi Steven, Please find attached two patches used for aarch64 work. Each patch goes into a different topic branch in the end, not in the linaro-topic-fvp branch as we discussed earlier. Still, they are quite simple, so shouldn't cause much of a problem. 0001-tools_def-AARCH64-use-CROSS_COMPILE-variable.patch The above patch goes into linaro-topic-misc. 0002-FVP-Add-support-for-EDK2_USE_ANDROID_CONFIG-build-pa.patch The above patch goes into linaro-topic-fvp. Please let me know if these cause you any problems, but it would be good to get them into uefi.git for the -rc4 and the -03 release respin. You can also pull both patches/branches from my tree: https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/ryanharkin/uefi-next.git;a=summary Thanks, Ryan.

12 years, 6 months

1
2
0 0

Re: uefi stub + grub

by Leif Lindholm

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:28:49PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > > load image protocol. In that case the sub should override the setting in > the > > > FDT if the initrd argument is present. > > > > Hmm, well, it's slightly worse than that - it will have one; only it > > will be GRUB's command line. > > > > The way that can be resolved is: > > - FDT present? > > - Commandline present in FDT chosen node? > > - Yes > > - Use that. > > - No > > - EFI_LOADED_IMAGE command line present? > > - Yes > > - Use that. > > - No > > - Fail miserably. > That doesn't handle the case where firmware provides the fdt, but the kernel is > loaded via the UEFI shell or gummiboot. In that case the stub must process both > the loaded image arguments. Well, unless the firmware-provided device tree contains a kernel command line, that should work fine? If you mean that there are two command lines to parse for the EFI_LOADED_IMAGE (one for shell/gummiboot), surely there is a handle in there to identify the "current" one. / Leif

12 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: uefi stub + grub

by Leif Lindholm

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:05:04PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > Handling the 2 cases is not a problem. I just don't want to handle > > 'mixed' cases where > > a command line and an FDT are passed to the stub, and information from > > both is used. > > > > As I understand it, the two cases are: > > > > FDT_GUID present == GRUB case > > * GRUB loads initrd if present > > * GRUB provides complete FDT to stub (includes command line, hardware > > description, initrd entry, etc.) > > * EFI stub loads FDT using FDT_GUID, adds memory map and system table > > pointer to FDT, starts kernel. > > * (any command line present in EFI_LOADED_IMAGE is ignored.) > > > > FDT_GUID absent == current case > > * stub loads FDT and initrd from system partition > > * stub adds command line from EFI_LOADED_IMAGE to FDT > > * stub adds initrd entry to FDT > > * stub adds memory map and system table pointer to FDT, starts kernel. > > > > In the case of UEFI owning the FDT, and providing it to the stub, > > where does the initrd come from? I think this adds > > another case to handle... > The stub will still need to process a command line if it is given one via the > load image protocol. In that case the sub should override the setting in the > FDT if the initrd argument is present. Hmm, well, it's slightly worse than that - it will have one; only it will be GRUB's command line. The way that can be resolved is: - FDT present? - Commandline present in FDT chosen node? - Yes - Use that. - No - EFI_LOADED_IMAGE command line present? - Yes - Use that. - No - Fail miserably. / Leif

12 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

Re: uefi stub + grub

by Roy Franz

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm(a)linaro.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 08:05:59AM -0700, Roy Franz wrote: >>> > I was thinking that the stub would want to use the FDT passed by grub >>> > if one is passed, but I hadn't thought about the case where grub wants >>> > to pass information to the stub, but the stub still loads the FDT. The >>> > easiest thing would be to straight out say that if GRUB is loading the >>> > initrd, then it is mandatory for GRUB to also load the FDT. That >>> > eliminates the corner case and I can't think of any situation where >>> > we'd want GRUB loading the initrd, but use the stub to load the FDT. >>> >>> I'd also like to avoid having the stub merge FDT contents from different trees. >>> >>> If we add this table, then it seems this would be the right way to >>> handle passing >>> the FDT to the EFI stub, even without GRUB involved. Is there a reason not to >>> move to this method in general? >> >> Not really. >> So ... I guess that would modify the stub behaviour to: >> - Look for an FDT_GUID configuration table. >> - If there, use it. >> - If not there, require one to be loaded based on command line. > > Create a mostly empty one for passing freeform data to the kernel > proper; this is what it will look like on ACPI systems. So for ACPI systems the stub will package the ACPI data into the FDT? What would the stub be putting into the FDT that an ACPI/UEFI aware kernel couldn't get itself at runtime from UEFI? > >> And the GRUB behaviour to: >> - If no FDT_GUID, require FDT if initrd. >> - If FDT_GUID, copy FDT + add initrd information. >> >> The x86 code uses bootparam to pass the kernel command line. >> Could we use the FDT exists) for the kernel command line >> too? This would make more code shared between x86 and ARM*, since >> otherwise we would need to explicitly implement (UCS?) command line >> passing to stub? > > Yes, I think that makes sense. That also means GRUB will need to > always create an FDT, even if it is empty. I'm not following something here - why would GRUB create an empty FDT? Is GRUB going to be responsible for the complete FDT, or just passing the initrd and/or command line in an FDT? > > The other option would be to pass the command line via the LoadOptions > from the EFI_LOADED_IMAGE protocol. I believe that is what Roy's > patches currently rely on for getting a command line. Yes, both my implementation and the x86 implementation get the command line from the EFI_LOADED_IMAGE protocol, and do conversion from UCS-2 (I think) to ASCII/UTF-8 to pass to the kernel. The format of the command line does not seem to be specified by UEFI. > > g.

12 years, 6 months

2
2
0 0

Re: uefi stub + grub

by Leif Lindholm

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 07:27:58PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > > So ... I guess that would modify the stub behaviour to: > > - Look for an FDT_GUID configuration table. > > - If there, use it. > > - If not there, require one to be loaded based on command line. > > Create a mostly empty one for passing freeform data to the kernel > proper; this is what it will look like on ACPI systems. OK. So we push the actual error condition of missing tree down to stub? Makes sense. > > The x86 code uses bootparam to pass the kernel command line. > > Could we use the FDT exists) for the kernel command line > > too? This would make more code shared between x86 and ARM*, since > > otherwise we would need to explicitly implement (UCS?) command line > > passing to stub? > > Yes, I think that makes sense. That also means GRUB will need to > always create an FDT, even if it is empty. Yes. This would be my preference. > The other option would be to pass the command line via the LoadOptions > from the EFI_LOADED_IMAGE protocol. I believe that is what Roy's > patches currently rely on for getting a command line. Since the current code doesn't UEFI-wise "load" the stub image, we'd effectively need to reverse-reconstruct GRUB's runtime environment, which I really wouldn't like. / Leif

12 years, 6 months

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture