coreboot July 2003

coreboot@coreboot.org

67 participants
150 discussions

Re: K8 + 2.4.21 + Tyan S2880
by YhLu 23 Jul '03

23 Jul '03

Eric or Ron or Stepfan, To make the NIC under mem auto-conf code, I have spent one day on it. Here are my findings: 1. Use the most updated code, in the Etherboot stage it will reboot after firt NIC try aborting. 2. I have try to subsutite mem-conf with hard code version, and found another problem, I can not start AP after conherent_ht or memory initization. Only can start and stop in enable_routing function. 3. I have to move back to old code ( Before Eric moved some definition from romcc_io.h to arch/io.h and cpu/p6/msr.h). At this situation, if I use mem-conf, it still can not find broadcom nic in etherboot stage. But after I substitute mem init with hard code one, It can find the nic. I will study the difference today. But anyway what make I can not start AP after conherent_ht or memory init, so strange ??? Regards Yinghai Lu -----邮件原件----- 发件人: YhLu 发送时间: 2003年7月22日 10:41 收件人: 'ebiederman(a)lnxi.com' 抄送: ron minnich; Stefan Reinauer; linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org 主题: Re: K8 + 2.4.21 + Tyan S2880 Eric, It can be compiled with you new code. But it meet problems in Etherboot stage. In S2880 has two broadcom NIC port in 8131 bus B, and one amd 8111 built-in nic, and even if I hide it in amd8111 init and Etherboot can find it and try to enable it and can not find the PM cap so aborting, in the old linuxbios code (before yesterday) ( with mem hard code), it will go to tickle on Broadcom nic, but in the new code (yesterday check in) ( mem configurable), it will go to MB restarting.??? How about arima broadcom nic position? Regards Yinghai Lu -----邮件原件----- 发件人: ebiederman(a)lnxi.com [mailto:ebiederman@lnxi.com] 发送时间: 2003年7月21日 18:33 收件人: YhLu 抄送: ron minnich; Stefan Reinauer; linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org 主题: Re: K8 + 2.4.21 + Tyan S2880 YhLu <YhLu(a)tyan.com> writes: > Eric, > > In the auto.c, if I enable : sdram_initialize(&cpu1), the linuxbios need > another 20k. What happened? Only add one line and the same function has been > called ??? All functions are inline and the set of functions called is large. At least I believe that is the issue. And good luck catching up.... While I am away you get a chance. My latest code has changed sdram_initialize one more time to take a cpu count parameter. And perversely this should help because if a function is called in a loop it will only be inlined once instead of multiple times. Eric

1 0

static and dynamic devices (again)
by ron minnich 23 Jul '03

23 Jul '03

Greg has spent the day exploring options for how to merge the static and dynamic device trees in LinuxBIOS, per Eric's comments. He wrote a substantial amount of code, which at this point we may not commit. The goal of the code was to see if it makes sense to merge the static and dynamic trees. I am not convinced such a merger makes sense. Discussion follows. The problem is this: on a given motherboard, there are a static set of devices, such as northbridges, southbridges, so on: these are soldered to the board. Then there are dynamic devices, plugged into PCI slots. On a motherboard, we know that the static devices are there, and we even know a lot about them, such as what certain registers do. We need on the motherboard to initialize components of the static devices. In other words, we have knowledge about: o the type of the device; o instances ofthe device; o special operations we need to do to the device to modify internal state (e.g. turn off the IDE controller, turn on Ethernet, etc.) o special control information that is highly device-specific These operations are operations that we have to do because the OS assumes they will be finished when the OS starts, or we need to do them to initialize things, such as DRAM. Dynamic devices are known only in a generic fashion. In LinuxBIOS, the sum total of our knowledge of dynamic devices is the Base Address Register set, the Command register, and possibly (in future) the IRQ. LinuxBIOS has no knowledge of device-specific I/O registers. For dynamic devices, LinuxBIOS does a few generic operations and lets the OS do the rest. So for dynamic devics we know about: o instances of the device o Generic control information that is not device-specific So, to sum up: for static devices, LinuxBIOS needs knowledge that goes beyond what the OS knows, and will perform device-specific operations based on internal knowledge LinuxBIOS has about the device. LinuxBIOS will maintain information about the type of the device and all instances of the device. In many cases, LinuxBIOS will do operations on the device that the OS is not capable of doing. For dynamic devices, LinuxBIOS only does the most general configuration, and has no knowledge of device internals. The OS manages device-specific operations. The dichotomy is pretty clear. It is kind of like a house. There are walls and floors and outlets and phone jacks. These are fixed (static). Then there are chairs and lights and phones. These are dynamic. You know all about the phone jacks, but you don't know about what phones are plugged in, and the phones change all the time, especially if you have children in the house. The static devices (walls) are a fundamentally different thing than the dynamic devices (chairs). We are calling static devices 'chips'. Chips are structured as follows: there is a chip_control structure for a TYPE of a chip, with generic information about the chip and a pointer to a control function that is specific to that chip. Then, for each instance of the chip, there is a chip structure that contains a pointer to the chip_control structure and information specific to the INSTANCE of the chip. Think of chip_info as the class definition, and chip as instantiations of the chip. Chips are statically declared and initialized, and form a tree with a root at the mainboard, with sibling pointers for chips at the same level -- e.g., two devices hung off the same southbridge are siblings. These structures are filled out at compile time. Dynamic devices are called struct device. There is (currently) a device struct allocated dynamically for each function on a device. [digression: The PCI heritage of devices is very clear once you start looking at them. This is reasonable, as even on HyperTransport everything looks like a PCI device. But it may bite us at some point.] Devices also form a tree, with children, parents, siblings, etc. One assumption we've noticed in the device code is that of a 'root bus'. Properly, this should not really exist: there can be multiple northbridges in a system, each with a PCI bus. But the device code so far inherits from freebios 1.0 the PC assumption that there is one root bus, and that it is configured from a common point of control -- on PCs, the 0xcf8/0xcfc mechanism. Our early assumption was that we could take the static tree, build a dynamic tree, and then populate the tree with dynamic devices. Eric would like to see this happen. Greg and I are no longer convinced this makes sense. Hence the source of this discussion. At minimum, if you build a dynamic tree from the static tree, you'll have to mark the devices as static. You'll have to handle them differently because the resources work differently. Some resources such as Base Address Registers won't exist on devices in the static tree. You'll have to note that some devices are capable of having device-specific code, and others are not. You'll end up with structure that really contains two structures inside: structure members for static devices only, and structure members for dynamic devices only. It won't be a happy marriage. Finally, all your code will have to handle two cases: static and dynamic devices. Once we looked at this, we saw that we ended up with a dynamic tree with static devices grafted in, with no apparent savings on complexity and no real code reuse. Here is what we think makes sense. The dichotomy between static and dynamic devices should remain. The static devices will not be converted into some form of dynamic device. There will need to be a linkage from the static devices to dynamic devices. This linkage will be at the northbridge -- as it is in hardware. Northbridges, i.e. devices which have an attached PCI bus (or more than one), will have a device structure pointer in the device-specific data structure (i.e. in the chip structure). At some point, as part of the code that walks the statically allocated northbridge, pci enumeration for that northbridge takes place. This has a major advantage for non-PC platforms (such as PPC) that don't use the standard PC 0xfcf8/0xcfc mechanism for configuring the PCI bus -- it makes sense to talk to the northbridge device directly to configure the bus(ses) on that northbridge. It is also a big win for systems with more than one northbridge -- these will be more and more common. And for switched, not bus-based, systems the advantage is apparent. We thus have a static tree (representing the static resources) with links at certain places to the dynamic tree (representing dynamic resources). LinuxBIOS can do device-specific operations on devices in the static tree, and can attach dynamic devices to nodes in the static tree. On the whiteboard in Greg's office, this setup makes lots of sense. We'll see how it is in practice. We plan to prototype this in the coming few days and try it out. Comments and questions are welcome. We need to open this discussion up. I would really like to hear from you folks. As Eric pointed out, we're trying to define the 2.0 core functionality, and we want to make it a good structure but also one that is easy for people to do new ports. It is essential to hear from those of you who are doing ports -- there are lots of you on this list. thanks ron

4 4

alternate startup idea.
by ron minnich 23 Jul '03

23 Jul '03

Well, my alternate startup idea works fine on the K8. Except ... looks like flash rom addressing is not enabled by default for anything but the 0xffff0000 segment, which means while my idea works, it's useless: if I jump to the 0xfffe0000 segment, I'll be reading air, not the flash part. Darn it. I kind of wish that we could get the chipmakers to default to full addressing in the high part of the address space, i.e. when it decodes for the flash, it decodes from 0xfff00000 up, not 0xffff0000 up. Someday ... Well, at least I have an interesting (I guess) proof-of-concept. Not sure where to take it, but I think I'll go ahead and put it aside. Sigh. ron

2 2

NVidia NForce2
by Marco Hetzel 23 Jul '03

23 Jul '03

Hi! The help-fromular on your page isn't working, so I once again try to write here. Are there any Driver for the NForce2 - Chipset? THX, Marco

1 0

K8 Progress
by ron minnich 23 Jul '03

23 Jul '03

it's getting easier and easier to resync the new config tool to the ongoing changes. Took a few minutes earlier today and I was back on the air. I have noticed that the testing of the first 16M of memory in auto.c is very slow, so I've turned it off on my version. My guess is for you guys it runs very fast. There must still be a difference somewhere. Can someone confirm that the K8 memory test in auto.c is fast? A note on the SST 49LF0[48]0 flash parts, since we've all had trouble with them. Here's what I have found. The first time I flash there is always trouble. However, if I 'eraseall /dev/mtd0' a few times, then do the 'dd trick': dd if=image of=/dev/mtd0 bs=65536 seek=$i skip=$i i.e. program individual blocks, it almost always works. >From that point on, programming is a matter of cat image > /dev/mtd0 So it seems there is something 'sticky' in these parts when new, cured by programming individual blocks. Flash is very odd ... ron

1 0

second alternate startup idea
by ron minnich 23 Jul '03

23 Jul '03

Seems to me we could enable the full flash rom decoding, then put the c_payload at 0xfffx0000, then have really big linuxbios images. I'll take a look at this too, later. ron

1 0

About my last post
by Gregg C Levine 22 Jul '03

22 Jul '03

Hello again from Gregg C Levine I dislike sending these. Along with the problems associated with this cloddish mailer. Sorry guys for sending that blasted thing out, twice. Ron, when you get the four of them, just discard one pair, or the other. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )

1 0

K8 news
by ron minnich 22 Jul '03

22 Jul '03

For those just joining. Eric Biederman has a solid C compiler for x86 for no-memory situations. The amount of assembly code in LinuxBIOS shrinks day-by-day. Stefan Reinauer at Suse and Eric have been working on different parts of the K8 problem and have linuxbios up on K8 1, 2, and 4 CPU systems. YHLu of Tyan has linuxbios up on the new K8 motherboard. Linuxbios also works now on the Arima HDAMA. Greg Watson and I have been upgrading the config tool. It is a substantial improvement. I am now easily able to track the tree and build with the new config tool only. The new tool is faster and produces more comprehensible makefiles. Perl expressions in makefiles are a thing of the past. The new tool is also much better for non-PC systems, e.g. PPC. I am also booting Linux directly out of FLASH using the 49LF080 1 Mbyte parts. I will be starting work on the NewISYS board soon. AMD has provided support in many ways, including opening up the documents. AMD should be credited for their longstanding support of LinuxBIOS on the K8, going back to long before the K8 was officially released. I think vendors such as AMD, LNXI, Suse, Tyan, Arima, and Newisys (I hope I left no one else out) are to be commended for their support of LinuxBIOS on this new CPU. This work represents a substantial financial commitment on the part of these companies. Thanks to you all. ron

1 0

fallbackimage, question
by Felix Kloeckner 22 Jul '03

22 Jul '03

hello, i successfully ported the fallbackimage-principle for the elitegroup p6stp-fl (sis630)but the problem is that it only works with 64KB fallback-image (i took the calculations from "supermicro/p4dpeg2/Config") because i need more space for the payload i need a bigger fallbackimage, but if i change the size of "FALLBACK_IMAGE_SIZE" only the fallbackimage will boot, not the normalimage (each time the normalimage should be jumped to the watchdogtimer expires and resets the board, after that the fallbackimage will boot again) does anybody see what i made wrong? (below is a part of my config - felix size related stuff from my config ---------------------------------------------- option USE_FALLBACK_IMAGE=0 expr USE_NORMAL_IMAGE=!USE_FALLBACK_IMAGE option ROM_SIZE=0x80000 #works only with exactly 0x10000, need more! <--------- option FALLBACK_IMAGE_SIZE=0x10000 option ROM_IMAGE_SIZE=43520 expr ROM_SECTION_SIZE=(USE_FALLBACK_IMAGE * FALLBACK_IMAGE_SIZE) + (USE_NORMAL_IMAGE * (ROM_SIZE - FALLBACK_IMAGE_SIZE) ) expr ROM_SECTION_OFFSET=(USE_FALLBACK_IMAGE * (ROM_SIZE - FALLBACK_IMAGE_SIZE)) + (USE_NORMAL_IMAGE * 0) expr ZKERNEL_START=(0xffffffff - ROM_SIZE + ROM_SECTION_OFFSET + 1) expr PAYLOAD_SIZE=ROM_SECTION_SIZE - ROM_IMAGE_SIZE expr _ROMBASE=ZKERNEL_START + PAYLOAD_SIZE #cache the upper 16M of the 4G address space #or else the decompression would be so slow that #the watchdogtimer resets the board even before #decompression is done option XIP_ROM_SIZE= 0x01000000 option XIP_ROM_BASE= 0xfe000000

1 0

Re: K8 + 2.4.21 + Tyan S2880
by YhLu 22 Jul '03

22 Jul '03

Eric, It can be compiled with you new code. But it meet problems in Etherboot stage. In S2880 has two broadcom NIC port in 8131 bus B, and one amd 8111 built-in nic, and even if I hide it in amd8111 init and Etherboot can find it and try to enable it and can not find the PM cap so aborting, in the old linuxbios code (before yesterday) ( with mem hard code), it will go to tickle on Broadcom nic, but in the new code (yesterday check in) ( mem configurable), it will go to MB restarting.??? How about arima broadcom nic position? Regards Yinghai Lu -----邮件原件----- 发件人: ebiederman(a)lnxi.com [mailto:ebiederman@lnxi.com] 发送时间: 2003年7月21日 18:33 收件人: YhLu 抄送: ron minnich; Stefan Reinauer; linuxbios(a)clustermatic.org 主题: Re: K8 + 2.4.21 + Tyan S2880 YhLu <YhLu(a)tyan.com> writes: > Eric, > > In the auto.c, if I enable : sdram_initialize(&cpu1), the linuxbios need > another 20k. What happened? Only add one line and the same function has been > called ??? All functions are inline and the set of functions called is large. At least I believe that is the issue. And good luck catching up.... While I am away you get a chance. My latest code has changed sdram_initialize one more time to take a cpu count parameter. And perversely this should help because if a function is called in a loop it will only be inlined once instead of multiple times. Eric

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
15
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot July 2003