From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Wed Sep 27 09:22:44 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE3BE2F4C5 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:22:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-it0-x236.google.com (mail-it0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CBD06ABEF for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:22:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-it0-x236.google.com with SMTP id 85so5821347ith.2 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 02:22:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=UzMQ1PdFjsVXNnqfNsFHJPDIg5yTau+7m27mCBqoN1E=; b=hc6RZAGjJVFGQv5a6GBIvmEHQGB+NXatPiBn+cqve417ejB8d4hIOh3hhkDGvoFwLn 775PgxXVCQ3MOU4A09ISTp1z5DQ5s8h8Po56QnFLEoKx5TZFle74mIC6CzXzGFaTAiQH CHtUnpEQy/GazlKy/zL9CdUakQqDvEPg5KJctjjPhbQZxRFi7S9eSYoX7ldL2DVZzy8x 6Tnn8XDVojiUPku42lFK+x+z+AhGnBkx84zkm4IiOcQt1+lRpBUNg7GOWCH/bM2oRmk3 cSAF3x64/nvyVsP5JE8u2Nlx+IFreOWiD6BsYueaVVt5TPdeLDeyLhBCmGSp/1wn9mUz As+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UzMQ1PdFjsVXNnqfNsFHJPDIg5yTau+7m27mCBqoN1E=; b=iiQUdwZTzgG+xErDp68Q933kApeNq8sju8q9O+KaXGOm87m+A3Ja0O0A4Tywy2jz+R s2VjHFjgoZTnP85VUmb9g+OLyR5Hv8I9zHXwPP2Xyxjn72F+nQswvp5xIz42iS5TzWYT ZkfKiMfX5BCJkJbmAHxQlLrLWgvpDi7/BB9bF2JSR0gZo4GQnJh6conJ7AbRgtzbXw7S MnI4Wr81/9TDZdg6KHpuk6s6G/+TSh4d/4T0IN54nmv60dHqtpfzZyJ8yexlJd5qicSu fgEUxHVHo+vo2TNErultXGQLp29LDpgoCI0EsyTpSu3+LUTdLpTXju7eg+uAiQEBtfZt q+9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUiaupEJMwItATb0a/nXAzaBITyzvPk8hP+zPh2Z6a3QZhNSOzQM vnMIN6EhlWq9o4L9jnJjvzy0ZxM+w6BVvnEwbBjiNg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QB3fJNyFMpOXKv9IDd8+0ZkjSHvemXAgzO97EDgee0M+xsrIzpAZHTqrBXCDyXq2QDSZEBKO2kgVnQjhvy5yOo= X-Received: by 10.36.20.149 with SMTP id 143mr1351398itg.63.1506504163526; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 02:22:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.2.194 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 02:22:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:f996:822c:89a6:8ee4] In-Reply-To: References: <201709260339.VAA16701@mail.lariat.net> <1506435673.73082.129.camel@freebsd.org> <201709261732.LAA21422@mail.lariat.net> <20170926200446.c188fda613df2ffb894b1ff3@bidouilliste.com> <1506450112.73082.143.camel@freebsd.org> <20170926204622.67ae9edbca62e2dcdbd1ea31@bidouilliste.com> <1506460653.73082.156.camel@freebsd.org> <1506466528.73082.172.camel@freebsd.org> <20170927112015.e997d7b1b8e9002c8377547a@bidouilliste.com> From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:22:42 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: CCO-VDxE38C_D8JyF89oUXEd0tY Message-ID: Subject: Re: CUBOX snapshots working? To: Emmanuel Vadot Cc: Ian Lepore , freebsd-arm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:22:44 -0000 On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Emmanuel Vadot > wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:05:40 -0600 >> Warner Losh wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Ian Lepore wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 16:45 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ian Lepore >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 14:07 -0700, Russell Haley wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Emmanuel Vadot >> > > > > > > te.c >> > > > > > om> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:21:52 -0600 >> > > > > > > Ian Lepore wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 20:04 +0200, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:32:21 -0600 >> > > > > > > > > Brett Glass wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > One would think that sauce for the goose would be sauce >> > > > > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > gander. But is this particular Cubox now useless with >> > > > > > > > > > FreeBSD? >> > > > > > > > > > And if so, why? It is not an unusual model. The Cubox >> > > > > > > > > > does >> > > > > > > > > > work >> > > > > > > > > > if I flash their "Ignition" startup software (which is >> > > > > > > > > > used >> > > > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > bootstrap by downloading various OS images) to the same >> > > > > > > > > > Micro SD card. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --Brett Glass >> > > > > > > > > The problem isn't FreeBSD related, it's U-Boot related. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > You could test build mainline u-boot just to confirm that >> > > > > > > > > it >> > > > > > > > > isn't >> > > > > > > > > something due to our ports. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If we used to provide working cubox images and we don't >> > > > > > > > anymore, >> > > > > > > > it's >> > > > > > > > hard to call that anything but a freebsd problem. >> > > > > > > There is working cubox images, the last one is from >> yesterday. >> > > > > > > You even say yourself that you did test it and that it >> worked. >> > > > > > > Do we even know if the snapshot worked for this board ? >> > > > > > > Brett, could you test the 11.0 release for example ? (I don't >> > > > > > > remember >> > > > > > > if for 11.1 we already switch u-boot or not). >> > > > > > I believe the change is in the u-boot port itself. However, I >> > > > > > don't >> > > > > > think it's a u-boot problem (IMHO), it's a u-boot build >> > > > > > configuration >> > > > > > problem. There are different board variants with different >> > > > > > hardware >> > > > > > layout. u-boot has code for it, but our build does not account >> > > > > > for. >> > > > > > Unless the scripts that build the 11.1 image use a different >> > > > > > revision >> > > > > > of the u-boot port, wouldn't it just use the current 2017.7 >> base? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm trying to figure out how to generate a u-boot with the >> > > > > > correct >> > > > > > SPL >> > > > > > portion of u-boot. One could pull the SolidRun u-boot repo, or >> go >> > > > > > find >> > > > > > the ports commit before the changeover and see if we can >> generate >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > correct SPL. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I looked at Mainline u-boot and there is a board directory for >> > > > > > solid >> > > > > > run. >> > > > > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/board/solidrun/ >> mx6cu >> > > > > > boxi >> > > > > > /mx6cuboxi.c >> > > > > > seems to support multiple memory configurations based on >> defines, >> > > > > > so >> > > > > > this should just be a configuration problem. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We clearly need to start supporting the lower spec'd SolidRun >> > > > > > boards >> > > > > > because this has come up a couple of times now since the >> > > > > > changeover. >> > > > > > It should be just a matter of creating a port that does the same >> > > > > > thing >> > > > > > but generates the correct SPL file? My SOM is a i2eX so I can't >> > > > > > be >> > > > > > too >> > > > > > much help (and I've also over volunteered myself!). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Russ >> > > > > > >> > > > > The old imx6 uboot ports generated a single copy of uboot that >> > > > > would >> > > > > boot dual and quad-core versions of both hummingboard and cubox >> > > > > systems. If the new uboot works only on quad core, that's another >> > > > > regression. It might be possible to extract the u-boot.imx file >> > > > > from a >> > > > > freebsd 10 image to get back to the old one. >> > > > > >> > > > > Ooops. Except it appears those no longer exist. >> > > > >> > > > Is this a loss of functionality when the changes were upstreamed? Is >> > > > it a >> > > > bad configuration on our part? Any idea what might be going on or >> how >> > > > to >> > > > fix it? >> > > >> > > The vendor uboot worked well. The generic mainline, apparently not so >> > > much. It may indicate that the vendor didn't upstream everything. I >> > > haven't worked much with the new imx6 uboot packages because for me >> > > they're completely unusable because they lack support for netbooting. >> > > (If you feel tempted to say something about efi and netbooting, >> please >> > > provide links to how-to documentation at the very least, and an >> example >> > > that works for armv6 would be even better.) >> > > >> > >> > I didn't think that we were enabling EFI + armv6 on anything yet by >> > default... >> > >> > Can't help you there. >> > >> > Warner >> >> We do, EFI is enabled by default in U-Boot on most of the boards. > > > And GENERIC actually supports that? > And more importantly, we have the right tooling to build the right images for EFI booting? Warner