On Friday,June 9, 2017  at 12:34 PM,王翔 wrote:

>On Friday,June 9, 2017 9:17 AM, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote:

>>On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 05:32:31PM +0800, 王翔 wrote:

>>> I try to debug coreboot with **spike**.

>>> I has apply the **8250 usart patch** to **spike**.

>>I haven't updated the patches at [1] in a while. Please check if the two

>>patches in [2] work for you if you also apply the following patch to

>>coreboot:

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>diff --git a/src/mainboard/emulation/spike-riscv/uart.c b/src/mainboard/emulation/spike-riscv/uart.c

>>index 57647fee1d..26ab630091 100644

>>--- a/src/mainboard/emulation/spike-riscv/uart.c

>>+++ b/src/mainboard/emulation/spike-riscv/uart.c

>>@@ -20,5 +20,5 @@

 

> >uintptr_t uart_platform_base(int idx)

 >>{

>>- return (uintptr_t) 0x40001000;

>>+ return (uintptr_t) 0x02100000;

 >>}

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>[1]: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-sim/pull/53

>>[2]: https://github.com/neuschaefer/riscv-isa-sim/commits/uart-update

>I get source frome  https://github.com/riscv/riscv-tools.git.

>Compare the difference with https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-sim/pull/53 and fix the code.

>The difference of Our patch is **UART_BASE**. You use 0x02100000, me use 0x40001000.

>In my test 0x40001000 can be work with **coreboot**, but 0x02100000 can not.

>My patch is in the attachment of the message.

I'm sorry. I not change **uintptr_t uart_platform_base(int idx)**

>>> But I get from the official website of the code can not pass the test.

>>> I found some BUG when I debug this.

>>What did you test? How did it fail?

>I test by **spike**.  I have report the patch.

>https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/20043/

>https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/20105/

But these bugs still exist.

>>Regards,

>>Jonathan Neuschäfer

>Regards,

>王翔

Regards,

王翔