Please see the log when the mahogany_fam10 was created. That is r5221. That is the problem located in folder amdht, which is about HT initialization of Family 10.
Zheng
-----Original Message----- From: coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org
[mailto:coreboot-bounces@coreboot.org]
On Behalf Of Warren Turkal Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 11:12 AM To: Juhana Helovuo Cc: Scott; coreboot@coreboot.org Subject: Re: [coreboot] AMD Tilapia / simnow: endless looping infunctionpci_scan_bus
Who's responsible for the tilapia port? I am trying to assign this to someone in the patchwork system, but I don't know who to assign it to.
Also, is there a testbed that can run this change to make sure it doesn't break non-tilapia systems?
Thanks, wt
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Juhana Helovuo juhe@iki.fi wrote:
1.9.2010 23:00, Scott kirjoitti:
Thanks Myles. That problem description and work-around matches my situation exactly. Even if the bad value passed to pci_scan_bus is only a side-effect of another problem, special handling for it
should
be considered in order to simplify debugging.
The same thead covers another problem I encounter with Tilapia.
When
I enable ACPI table generation, an overlap causes the seabios
payload
to overwrite the ACPI tables. I temporarily worked around this
problem
by deselecting GFXUMA. I am using PCI video so I can boot with no
uma.
Hello,
I had similar problems recently. I did a patch for Asus M4A785-M,
which
is
derived from the AMD Tilapia port.
The patch can be found at http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2010-August/059989.html
There is another patch that sets up UMA and coreboot/ACPI/etc.
tables as
reserved areas in the multiboot tables. Without this patch booting
with
Grub
to Linux suffers from the same problem of overwriting tables.
http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2010-August/060014.html
I do not know if these are going to be integrated to the Coreboot
trunk,
but
currently they are available as patch files.
How does SeaBIOS detect which RAM is usable and which is not? Maybe
the
memory conflict with UMA and ACPI tables could be avoided in a
similar
manner?
Best regards, Juhana Helovuo
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot