Am Samstag, den 11.07.2015, 08:00 -0500 schrieb Aaron Durbin:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
[…]
With the latest changes we they are measured relatively to system start.
$ more asrock/e350m1/4.0-10270-gbd1499d/2015-07-10T13:23:53Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt 12 entries total:
10:start of ramstage 385,974 30:device enumeration 385,982 (8) 40:device configuration 480,233 (94,250) 50:device enable 484,088 (3,855) 60:device initialization 494,049 (9,960) 70:device setup done 508,368 (14,318) 75:cbmem post 508,736 (368) 80:write tables 508,741 (4) 90:load payload 513,320 (4,579) 15:starting LZMA decompress (ignore for x86) 513,574 (253) 16:finished LZMA decompress (ignore for x86) 531,423 (17,848) 99:selfboot jump 531,445 (21)
This is actually surprising, but I just looked into it. I see why; it's from my most recent change.
yes, I also assumed it was due to your change set [1].
If I guard with CONFIG_EARLY_CBMEM_INIT it'd go back to the previous way.
I do too.
But I actually do like this way (though unintended). The base_time was never properly exported it from cbmem:
-------for (i = 0; i < tst_p->num_entries; i++) { ------->-------const struct timestamp_entry *tse_p = tst_p->entries + i; ------->-------timestamp_print_entry(tse_p->entry_id, tse_p->entry_stamp, ------->------->-------i ? tse_p[-1].entry_stamp : 0); -------}
It always assumed 0 as a base_time. Without the diff below base_time is actually 0 in this case so you see the accumulated time until ramstage started. I actually think we should fix cbmem.c to not pass 0 as prev_stamp for 0th index. It should be passing base_time as well as reporting what base_time was from an informational perspective.
I totally agree.
If we want to change it back it's not that hard:
[…]
I can’t think of a reason, why we’d want to have the old behavior back.
Thanks,
Paul