Hi Leif,
I have make a new multiboot support patch following your suggestion:
(1)break the multiboot-spcecific code out into a separate source file: multiboot.c
(2)use more generic terminology
(3)try to avoid change existing Linux loader
I have tested it locally, it works fine for me.
Please check the patch, and provide some suggestions.
Thank you very much! :-)
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
LAVA Engineer From Red Hat
LAVA Team
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile)
IRC: fuwei
Skype: tekkamanninja
Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15,
One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District,
Shanghai,China 200021
Hi,
I am trying to port edk2 to our ARM64 platform simulator and seeing
strange behaviour.
I see the content of FdtDevicePath is getting changed, after executing
the function
BdsLoadImage() to load the Linux Image file.
Because of this, when BdsLoadImage function is called to load the
fdt.dtb file, the execution goes in infinite loop.
After debugging, i am seeing that, it is happenig due to corrution of
FDT device path.
Before the BdsLoadImage() called to load Linux Image file,
the FDT device path(0xFBC8B918) content is valid, ie
DevicePathFdt->Type = 1.
DevicePathFdt ->SubType= 4.
DevicePathFdt->Lenght[0] = 20.
After the Linux Image is loaded, it is changes as below,
DevicePathFdt->Type = 112
DevicePathFdt ->SubType= 111
DevicePathFdt->Lenght[0] = 100
further debugging, i see this happening by below lines of code, in function
CoreLocateHandle(), MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Hand/Locate.c
//
// Increase the resulting buffer size, and if this handle
// fits return it
//
ResultSize += sizeof(Handle);
if (ResultSize <= *BufferSize) {
*ResultBuffer = Handle; <= this line is corrupting the
devicepath of FDT.
ResultBuffer += 1;
}
}
Not able to understand what causing this corruption.
Any clue on what is going wrong?
Any suggestions for further debugging?
BTW, I am using edk2 source from
git://git.linaro.org/uefi/linaro-edk2.git, branch master
thanks
Ganapat
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Casadevall <michael.casadevall(a)linaro.org>
Date: 28 March 2014 08:26
Subject: TianoCore KVM Port: Status Update
To: linaro-dev(a)lists.linaro.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
As I've made a fair bit of headway since LinaroConnect, I wanted to
drop a line on my current progress with porting TianoCore to KVM
Summary (tl;dr version):
KVM can start TianoCore, and boot all the way to shell, and access
HDDs via VirtioBlk. We can start grub and successfully retrieve files
from ext partitions, load a device tree, and start the kernel. The
kernel runs through most of the EFI stub, but falls over during
ExitBootServices()
Long Version:
So, after much blood sweat and tears, we're finally at the point of
trying to actually start a kernel, though this (for the moment)
remains an elusive goal. The current problem is that once we call
EBS(), we get an exception from EFI with no Image information, which
means the exception handler doesn't know where it came from. After
several seconds, we get a second exception from within DxeCore, and
then EFI falls over.
Debugging EFI is difficult and error prone, combined with limited
debug facilities from the gdb-stub in QEMU (no breakpoints), and no
decent way to load all of EFI itself (you have to run add-symbol-file
manually with the output of commands printed on the console;
supposedly its possible to generate a giant GdbSyms.dll file to import
in a single go, but I haven't succeeded at this). This is further
complicated that it appears we're asserting somewhere in a driver, and
short of adding printfs to *every* driver, its impossible to know
which is asseting.
Previous attempts to debug assets shows that EFI does "odd" things to
the stack when we hit an exception, making walking it with GDB
impossible. I need to figure out what madness EFI does with my SP so I
can get the entire stack on an explosion, but this remains at best
hopeful thinking.
Further complicating things is that during EBS, my print debugging
goes away. I might just cheat and roll a simple assembly function to
bang out messages through serial without calling anything else. Ugly
as sin, but this should let me get useful debug output through the EBS
framework. Complicating matters is that I need to locate each and all
EBS() event functions, which are spread *everywhere* in TianoCore, and
then debug them each individually.
I'm open to ideas on how best to accomplish this.
On a larger scale, there are a couple of other bugs and odds and ends
which currently affect us:
* wfi doesn't work
THis is probably the biggest w.r.t. to functionality that should work,
but doesn't. The EFI event loop is built on checking the timer, then
calling wfi to check the timer later. The problem here is we call wfi
... and UEFI never comes back despite events firing (I can put print
code in the interrupt handler to confirm this). This may be related to
the VGIC errors I get running kvm under foundation, but haven't taken
the time to properly nail down the bug here.
This was worked around by commenting out the wfi, turning event loop
into a busy loop, but this has to be resolved before we can ever
consider merging it
* No RTC
I looked through virt.c in KVM, and as best I can tell, I've got no
RTC at all (no PL031). It also appears that the kernel can't get RTC
as running a kernel gets me a 1970 clock. I'm not sure if this is by
design or not, but it causes GetTime() to return EFI_ERROR, and I
suspect may be one of the exceptions I'm getting avoid (Shell prints a
ton of warnings that GetTime is busted).
* No terminfo support (not ARM specific)
EFI assumes its working against a real console or terminal. As such,
it doesn't respect anything like termcap or such, and output gets
jumbled due to incorrect escape sequencies and such. This isn't
specific to ARM as I get identical behavior with OVMF running on stdio
or over telnet. Backspace for instance requires me to type ^H into the
console manually
As we expect to have this usable remotely, we need to determine how to
handle the terminal and escape sequences properly so we're not
printing garbage to the screen. A "dumb" mode might just be the best
way to handle this, but something like grub do display fancy graphics.
Ideas welcome.
If anyone wants to play with it, my code is on git, but requires a bit
of setup to get running, and you need a patch to KVM to successfully
start UEFI at the moment.
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTNTJTAAoJEGKVRgSEnX1Qm2YH/jzWQjB/DPSHdv33hUlxVuIm
j2AGElid7HM+3gp5U/ILdXvCyP9LFg8RATsvUa7bSHdwFZxRdAqYUWzm/Jxg6ZYV
kyTzTDuPhbXp8koVLF14H/oGlpwnEH5rhzNa3UeRZTNYnNp3UMeZ1NXgGu9ziCfk
hMGGteTMfV/6fGD6AETtlpD99KKwFiprD198QAil2rpVRi4WZBcgp7Y9/c/+cLfy
sJD7p+zN8jBh9r9njpxh0o5rrQoG3N1NAemPGbSAc+qMMYCDOmjasGLwYiJuuMDy
apRBM9+pbYsEgBGxM1z3XGywBJWBaLGzizk8vfPN2kN70/F7RW89X1rqG/95Ais=
=OwC0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev(a)lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Hi Leif,
I have updated your new-uefi-for-upstream to work with the x86 mixed mode
patchset that Matt Fleming posted. He added a new patch on top of that to add
a macro to invoke the efi_early stuff, and it looks like that will go
in. (it got pulled into tip,
and Matt verified no object code changes.) If that goes in then we
get to avoid changing x86
code in our patchset. (And if it doesn't, we should just base ours on
his since his will surely go into 3.16.)
I have pushed the tag rfranz-efi-for-leif-201400327 to
git://git.linaro.org/people/roy.franz/linux.git
The patches of interest are, in order:
e74db1227..f81084ad84 These are Matt's 13 mixed mode patches.
Some of the x86 bits didn't fully apply - I left some changes out.
x86 compiles,
but is likely not correct code. All common bits applied cleanly.
5373b9eb Matt's new code adding efi_call_early macro
(existing series here. There were some minor merge conflicts on a
couple of patches here.)
0949132b Here I add the arm64 version of the efi_call_early macro
8e97160b80b This patch adds the new non-shared helper functions
that were added in the mixed-mode patch series.
The last two should likely be squashed into the "arm64: add EFI stub" patch,
but I wanted to leave them separate for internal review first.
Roy
Please find the attached patches that should add GICv3 support to UEFI. This
patchset has been validated on SVN rev15402 (27th March 2014).
The testing and review have been limited (reason why these patches have not
been pushed to EDK2 repository). I do not have any ETA.
The GicDxe support GICv2 and GICv3 without requiring to be rebuilt.
Feedbacks and comments are welcome.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linaro-uefi-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-uefi-
> bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Martin
> Sent: 17 March 2014 17:47
> To: 'Ganapatrao Kulkarni'; Leif Lindholm
> Cc: linaro-uefi(a)lists.linaro.org
> Subject: Re: [Linaro-uefi] Any plans to support GICv3 on UEFI
>
> I started to work on a UEFI GICv3 driver last year. It is almost
> working but
> I had to switch to higher priority tasks since then.
> I have the plan to clean and publish this driver soon. I would say by
> then
> of April, but I do not want to commit to any date.
> If it is blocking you then I can send an early version of the patch.
>
> Olivier
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linaro-uefi-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-uefi-
> > bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Ganapatrao Kulkarni
> > Sent: 15 March 2014 06:58
> > To: Leif Lindholm
> > Cc: linaro-uefi(a)lists.linaro.org
> > Subject: Re: [Linaro-uefi] Any plans to support GICv3 on UEFI
> >
> > Thanks Leif
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Leif Lindholm
> > <leif.lindholm(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Ganapat,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:01:34PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni
> wrote:
> > >> I am using git://git.linaro.org/uefi/linaro-edk2.git and i see the
> > >> comments saying
> > >> /* Initialize GICv3 to expose it as a GICv2 as UEFI does not
> support
> > >> GICv3 yet */
> > >>
> > >> Anyone is working/plan to add GICv3 driver?
> > >
> > > This is part of the architectural support, and pulled in that way
> > > from Tianocore. It supports using a GICv3 in "legacy" GICv2 mode.
> > >
> > > I expect ARM will provide a non-legacy GICv3 driver at some point,
> > > but I do not know the exact roadmap.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Leif
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linaro-uefi mailing list
> > Linaro-uefi(a)lists.linaro.org
> > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-uefi
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linaro-uefi mailing list
> Linaro-uefi(a)lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-uefi
Hi Leif,
So, speaking to Olivier yesterday, I worked out what he meant about using
GCC48 these days. I've taken his ideas and added them to the uefi-build.sh
script locally and tested them. Patch below.
You mentioned that you'd rather just use "GCC". Generally, I agree with
you. The definitions for GCC44 through to GCC48 are currently the same
anyway. However, there are no definitions for plain old GCC, so
tools_def.template would need hacking again.
In the meantime, with the absence of GCC hacks, do you see any problems
with my patch?
Olivier,
One big problem I see with the differing toolchains is that the output dir
changes every time I build with a different toolchain. I can't really see
an advantage to having different sub-dirs for each toolchain. I really
don't believe we'll build the same BSP with more than one toolchain without
cleaning the repo first. At least, I reckon you'd be mad to to not clean
first ;-)
Do you see a use-case for having the toolchain naming in the output dir
name? If not, how on earth would we hack the codebase so it just outputs
to DEBUG/RELEASE instead?
Cheers,
Ryan.
------------------------------------------------------------
[PATCH] uefi-build: update TOOLCHAIN configuration
Using ARMGCC vs ARMLINUXGCC causes various problems.
Switching to GCC4x causes other problems, but seems cleaner than either
of the previous two options.
Signed-off-by: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin(a)linaro.org>
---
uefi-build.sh | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/uefi-build.sh b/uefi-build.sh
index f376496..5cf38ca 100755
--- a/uefi-build.sh
+++ b/uefi-build.sh
@@ -81,15 +81,41 @@ function build_platform
TARGETS=( RELEASE )
fi
+ if [ "$TOOLCHAIN" == "" ]; then
+ gcc_version=$(${CROSS_COMPILE}gcc -v 2>&1 | tail -1 | awk
'{print $3}')
+ case $gcc_version in
+ 4.6.*)
+ export TOOLCHAIN=GCC46
+ export GCC46_ARM_PREFIX=$CROSS_COMPILE
+ export GCC46_AARCH64_PREFIX=$CROSS_COMPILE
+ ;;
+ 4.7.*)
+ export TOOLCHAIN=GCC47
+ export GCC47_ARM_PREFIX=$CROSS_COMPILE
+ export GCC47_AARCH64_PREFIX=$CROSS_COMPILE
+ ;;
+ 4.[8-9].*)
+ export TOOLCHAIN=GCC48
+ export GCC48_ARM_PREFIX=$CROSS_COMPILE
+ export GCC48_AARCH64_PREFIX=$CROSS_COMPILE
+ ;;
+ *)
+ echo "Unsupported toolchain"
+ exit 1
+ ;;
+ esac
+ fi
+ echo "TOOLCHAIN=$TOOLCHAIN"
+
for target in "${TARGETS[@]}" ; do
if [ X"$PLATFORM_PREBUILD_CMDS" != X"" ]; then
echo "Run pre build commands"
eval ${PLATFORM_PREBUILD_CMDS}
fi
if [ X"$PLATFORM_BUILDCMD" == X"" ]; then
- echo CROSS_COMPILE="$TEMP_CROSS_COMPILE" build -a
"$PLATFORM_ARCH" -t ARMGCC -p "$PLATFORM_DSC" -b "$target" \
+ echo CROSS_COMPILE="$TEMP_CROSS_COMPILE" build -a
"$PLATFORM_ARCH" -t ${TOOLCHAIN} -p "$PLATFORM_DSC" -b "$target" \
${PLATFORM_BUILDFLAGS}
- CROSS_COMPILE="$TEMP_CROSS_COMPILE" build -a
"$PLATFORM_ARCH" -t ARMGCC -p "$PLATFORM_DSC" -b "$target" \
+ CROSS_COMPILE="$TEMP_CROSS_COMPILE" build -a
"$PLATFORM_ARCH" -t ${TOOLCHAIN} -p "$PLATFORM_DSC" -b "$target" \
${PLATFORM_BUILDFLAGS}
else
${PLATFORM_BUILDCMD} -b "$target"
${PLATFORM_BUILDFLAGS}
@@ -115,7 +141,6 @@ function uefishell
esac
export ARCH
echo "Setting up shell for building UEFI"
- export TOOLCHAIN=ARMGCC
export EDK_TOOLS_PATH=`pwd`/BaseTools
. edksetup.sh BaseTools
make -C $EDK_TOOLS_PATH
--
1.8.3.2
Hi all,
I have written a simple wiki about "boot Xen with GRUB on AArch64 FVP_base model", the link is below:
https://wiki.linaro.org/LEG/Engineering/Grub2/Xen_booting_on_FVP_Base_AEMv8A
It is a draft, I will go on improve it.
If you have any thought or suggestion, Please let me know, I will improve it ASAP.
Thank you very much!
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
LAVA Engineer From Red Hat
LAVA Team
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile)
IRC: fuwei
Skype: tekkamanninja
Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15,
One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District,
Shanghai,China 200021
Thanks Olivier.
Can you please share the early version?
Ganapat
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Olivier Martin <olivier.martin(a)arm.com> wrote:
> I started to work on a UEFI GICv3 driver last year. It is almost working but
> I had to switch to higher priority tasks since then.
> I have the plan to clean and publish this driver soon. I would say by then
> of April, but I do not want to commit to any date.
> If it is blocking you then I can send an early version of the patch.
>
> Olivier
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linaro-uefi-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-uefi-
>> bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Ganapatrao Kulkarni
>> Sent: 15 March 2014 06:58
>> To: Leif Lindholm
>> Cc: linaro-uefi(a)lists.linaro.org
>> Subject: Re: [Linaro-uefi] Any plans to support GICv3 on UEFI
>>
>> Thanks Leif
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Leif Lindholm
>> <leif.lindholm(a)linaro.org> wrote:
>> > Hi Ganapat,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:01:34PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> >> I am using git://git.linaro.org/uefi/linaro-edk2.git and i see the
>> >> comments saying
>> >> /* Initialize GICv3 to expose it as a GICv2 as UEFI does not support
>> >> GICv3 yet */
>> >>
>> >> Anyone is working/plan to add GICv3 driver?
>> >
>> > This is part of the architectural support, and pulled in that way
>> > from Tianocore. It supports using a GICv3 in "legacy" GICv2 mode.
>> >
>> > I expect ARM will provide a non-legacy GICv3 driver at some point,
>> > but I do not know the exact roadmap.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Leif
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linaro-uefi mailing list
>> Linaro-uefi(a)lists.linaro.org
>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-uefi
>
>
>
>
Hi,
I am using git://git.linaro.org/uefi/linaro-edk2.git and i see the
comments saying
/* Initialize GICv3 to expose it as a GICv2 as UEFI does not support
GICv3 yet */
Anyone is working/plan to add GICv3 driver?
thanks,
Ganapat
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The first version of multiboot support patch for aarch64
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:52:06 +0800
From: Fu Wei <fu.wei(a)linaro.org>
Reply-To: Fu Wei <fu.wei(a)linaro.org>
Organization: Linaro
To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm(a)linaro.org>
CC: Roy Franz <roy.franz(a)linaro.org>, "anmar.oueja(a)linaro.org" <anmar.oueja(a)linaro.org>
Hi Leif
The The first version of multiboot support patch is attached!
It bases on the master branch of upstream git repo.
I have sorted out the code, and I have tested it locally, it works fine for me.
Could you please help me to review it. And give me some suggestion?
BTW, in LEG team, what I should do when I have a patch? Using "git review" or sent the patch to you directly ?? :-)
Thank you very much!
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
LAVA Engineer From Red Hat
LAVA Team
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile)
IRC: fuwei
Skype: tekkamanninja
Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15,
One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District,
Shanghai,China 200021
