Re: [coreboot] [regression] Increased romstage boot time on ASRock E350M1 (AMD Family 14h)

[Aaron Durbin]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Aaron Durbin  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Paul Menzel
>  wrote:
> > Dear coreboot folks,
> >
> > on the ASRock E350M1, I lately noticed that the SeaBIOS banner takes
> > longer to appear. And looking at the logs board status [1], the time
> > stamps stored in CBMEM confirm this.
>
> What were your typical times like?
> > $ grep 1st asrock/e350m1/4.2-*/*/coreboot_timestamps.txt
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-33-g42444f6/2015-10-30T17:54:28Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     368,199
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-36-g0ace013/2015-10-31T13:22:12Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     368,416
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-37-gab35575/2015-10-31T18:23:47Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     367,904
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-41-g3c47e8a/2015-10-31T20:39:02Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     367,829
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-42-g0746452/2015-10-31T21:11:04Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     368,081
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-43-g160ad6a/2015-10-31T21:12:09Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     368,290
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-44-gbabb2e6/2015-10-31T21:14:48Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     368,023
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-53-gf6dc544/2015-11-01T13:27:02Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     368,470
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-58-g65eec4d/2015-11-02T15:41:33Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     679,462
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-628-g62c0276/2015-12-29T17:17:01Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     1,528,198
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-701-gb95a074/2016-01-08T01:44:15Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     1,298,841
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-702-gfecc24a/2016-01-08T16:21:59Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     1,289,489
> > asrock/e350m1/4.2-703-g8846382/2016-01-09T21:18:59Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt:   0:1st timestamp                                     1,289,756
> >
> > Unfortunately, there was a time, where I had forgotten to select this
> > option, so I am still bisecting this.
> >
> > I thought, it might have been fixed with the commit 4.2-630-g65e33c0
> > below [1], but it’s not.
> > commit 65e33c08a9a88c52baaadaf515b9591856115a77
> > Author: Nico Huber <[e-mail]>
> > Date:   Mon Dec 28 20:17:13 2015 +0100
> >
> >     x86: Align CBFS on top of ROM
> >
> >     Since the introduction of the new (interim?) master header, coreboot
> >     searches the whole ROM for CBFS entries. Fix that by aligning it on top
> >     of the ROM.
> >
> >     Change-Id: I080cd4b746169a36462a49baff5e114b1f6f224a
> > […]
> >
> > Do you know, which commit the commit message referred to?
> >
> > Looking more into it, Nico’s commit was reverted in commit 4.2-673-
> > g12c55ed [3] and the logic reworked.
> > commit 12c55eda11453ed1e7a24e218338831f67cd5de6
> > Author: Aaron Durbin <[e-mail]>
> > Date:   Mon Jan 4 13:57:07 2016 -0600
> >
> >     Revert "x86: Align CBFS on top of ROM"
> >
> >     This reverts commit 65e33c08a9a88c52baaadaf515b9591856115a77.
> >     This was the wrong logic to fix the master header.
> >
> >     Change-Id: I4688034831f09ac69abfd0660c76112deabd62ec
> > […]
> >
> > If you have any suggestions, please tell me. Otherwise, I’d continue
> > trying to bisect this.
> >
> > And unfortunately, I am unable to provide romstage messages, as I still
> > haven’t got the serial header for the board.
> >
> > So if somebody else, Stefan, Martin, Kevin, could provide that, that
> > would be awesome.
>
> Did you rebuild cbfstool that contains this patch?
> https://review.coreboot.org/12825 It was the one I said fixed the
> logic when you asked in https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/12824/.
> Additionally, there's also the comments I left in
> https://review.coreboot.org/12810 that explained how that patch was
> incorrect.
>
> Please provide a hexdump snippet (hexdump -C image.rom) that shows the
>  "ORBC" section. That's the master header, and we can analyze if you
> did indeed build w/ an updated cbfstool as well as determine if there
> are other issues.

I just looked at the 703-* log:

CBFS: 'Master Header Locator' located CBFS at [100:3fffc0)

That corresponds w/ your config:
CONFIG_CBFS_SIZE=0x400000
CONFIG_ROM_SIZE=0x400000

So that's all correct. It's not cbfs as far as I can tell (seems
unlikely). I suspect that your timestamps are just more correct. Where
does your first timestamp original from? Is that in ramstage?
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > PS: I’ll try to create a ticket for this issue in the bug tracker [4]
> > this evening.
> >
> > [1] https://review.coreboot.org/gitweb?p=board-status.git;a=summary
> > [2] https://review.coreboot.org/12810
> > [3] https://review.coreboot.org/12824
> > [4] https://ticket.coreboot.org/
> > --
> > coreboot mailing list: [e-mail]
> > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot