Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] workaround for "An unexpected error (805262864) occurred at line 1768 of d:\xpclient\base\boot\setup\arcdisp.c"

[David Robinson]

An excellent piece of debug. I spent a few days debugging this particular problem and can appreciate the work that Scott must have put in.

I have tested the patch on the bimini_fam10 platform. I can't see any compromises in applying this patch so should it be considered it a fix rather than a workaround?

Acked-by: David Robinson

Blue Chip Technology 
David Robinson 
Software Development Engineer Tel :         [phone] 
Fax :         [phone] www.bluechiptechnology.co.uk

Industrial Computers | Single Board Computers | Panel PCs | Data Acquisition | Digital Signage | Custom Design 
Engineer Solutions for Embedded and Industrial Computing

----- Original Message -----
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 7:40:46 AM
Subject: coreboot Digest, Vol 75, Issue 54

Send coreboot mailing list submissions to
        [e-mail]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [e-mail]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [e-mail]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of coreboot digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: How long will take to add coreboot support for        my
      motherboard? Please, expert roughly estimation needed. (Peter Stuge)
   2. Re: How long will take to add coreboot support for my
      motherboard? Please, expert roughly estimation needed.
      (Vikram Narayanan)
   3. Re: How long will take to add coreboot support for my
      motherboard? Please, expert roughly estimation needed.
      (Vikram Narayanan)
   4. Re: Kconfig vs. devicetree vs. CMOS policy for options?
      (Scott Duplichan)
   5. [PATCH] workaround for "An unexpected error (805262864)
      occurred at line 1768 of d:\xpclient\base\boot\setup\arcdisp.c"
      (Scott Duplichan)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 03:40:36 +0200
From: Peter Stuge 
To: coreboot 
Subject: Re: [coreboot] How long will take to add coreboot support for
        my        motherboard? Please, expert roughly estimation needed.
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Vikram Narayanan wrote:
> Thank you. I think this can also be in Developer wiki. This might
> give an insight of how much work is involved.
> (or is it already there in the wiki?)

Dunno..? Isn't it mostly common sense? (That development can be fast
or slow, and depends on how much can be reused.) I'm not saying I am
opposed to it being in the wiki, but it's also easy to spam the FAQ..

//Peter

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 07:18:05 +0530
From: Vikram Narayanan 
To: peter 
Cc: coreboot 
Subject: Re: [coreboot] How long will take to add coreboot support for
        my motherboard? Please, expert roughly estimation needed.
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Peter Stuge  wrote:
> Vikram Narayanan wrote:
> > Thank you. I think this can also be in Developer wiki. This might
> > give an insight of how much work is involved.
> > (or is it already there in the wiki?)
>
> Dunno..? Isn't it mostly common sense? (That development can be fast
> or slow, and depends on how much can be reused.) I'm not saying I am
> opposed to it being in the wiki, but it's also easy to spam the FAQ..

I agree with you. But for people who are new to the porting, this may
be helpful. I don't know how many of the newbies to coreboot are aware
of the fact that many things can be reused, and sometimes porting is
very easy.
Just a thought (to include this in wiki).

-
Thanks,
Vikram

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 07:08:02 +0530
From: Vikram Narayanan 
To: [e-mail]
Cc: coreboot 
Subject: Re: [coreboot] How long will take to add coreboot support for
        my motherboard? Please, expert roughly estimation needed.
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Peter Stuge  wrote:
> Vikram Narayanan wrote:
> > > It took me less then 8 hours to make my first port, and I'm not even a C
> > > programmer, mine was a best case senario as there was a sibling board
> > > already ported. I have also ported some where just the component where
> > > supported, that didn't take to long either, probably 7-10 hours.
> > >
> > > Working on a board where only legacy code and docs are available I have
> > > probably spend around 12 hours to get to ram init.
> > >
> > > I think the key to sussess is to have an easy way to reflash the bios when
> > > your image failes.
> >
> > Seems quite inspirational to the people who wanted to port for new
> > boards.
> > @ Stefan: Can you please share your opinions on this?
>
> The time required of course depends on many factors. In general
> terms, these are:
> Ability to understand or learn C and programming languages in
>
> ? general, and hardware structure.
> 2. Hardware differences.
> 3. How much similar code there already exists in coreboot.
> 4. How readable the code is that does exist in coreboot and is
> ? relevant for the project.
>
> In concrete terms, they are:
> Programming and electronics experience, and abstract thinking
> How similar your mainboard is to another already supported
>
> ? mainboard.
> 3. If *any* similar mainboard is already supported by coreboot.
> ? By similar I mean exact same relevant components; cpu north south
> ? superio.
> 4. Quality of coreboot code for cpu north south superio.
>
> These are just the factors to consider *when all components are
> supported already*. In ideal circumstances a board port needs to take
> only one hour. In reality, circumstances are never ideal and the time
> needed per board grows exponentially or even steeper still with the
> number of less than ideal points to consider.
>
> Worst case is so far 8-12 man-months for a coreboot expert.

Thank you. I think this can also be in Developer wiki. This might give
an insight of how much work is involved.
(or is it already there in the wiki?)

-
Thanks,
Vikram

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 00:48:31 -0500
From: "Scott Duplichan" 
To: 
Subject: Re: [coreboot] Kconfig vs. devicetree vs. CMOS policy for
        options?
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain;        charset="us-ascii"

Anders Jenbo wrote:

]You could use http://driverpacks.net/ to incorporate the AHCI driveres 
]on your cd.

Hello Anders,

Thanks for the suggestion. I did find that site the other day. At first
it looked like what I needed. But when I went to choose a download, I
I could find x64 packs only for Vista/7. I use the x64 edition of XP
or Server 2003.

Thanks,
Scott

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 01:40:08 -0500
From: "Scott Duplichan" 
To: 
Subject: [coreboot] [PATCH] workaround for "An unexpected error
        (805262864)        occurred at line 1768 of
        d:\xpclient\base\boot\setup\arcdisp.c"
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The attached patch works around a Windows XP or Server 2003 setup
failure where an error message such as:
"An unexpected error (805262864) occurred at line 1768 of
d:\xpclient\base\boot\setup\arcdisp.c"
The value 805262864 varies, and is the physical address, in decimal,
of one of the ACPI tables.

Tested on Persimmon. Others abuild tested only.
Signed-off-by: Scott Duplichan

Detailed explanation: The error message is displayed when a 1024 dword
page table array used by setupldr runs out of space. This table is used
for mapping various physical addresses, such as those of ACPI tables
(a separate table identity maps the lower 16MB used by setupldr code
and data). Setupldr only looks at ACPI tables (FACP) to determine make
and model of the system. The make and model of the system is needed when
setupldr scans the good/bad bios lists contained in txtsetup.sif. The
good/bad bios lists are used to bypass installation of the ACPI enabled
kernel on certain systems known to have ACPI problems. The code loop
that scans the lists creates a new mapping each time it reads an ACPI
table, and never frees mappings. The code uses FACP OEM ID to determine
the system model. The code sequentially reads tables listed in the RSDT
array until the FACP is found. Each read consumes one page table entry.
If more that 4 tables precede the FACP in the RSDT array, the 1024
entry page table array will run out of space before the good/bad bios
list processing completes. BIOS can work around this Windows XP/Server
2003 limitation by placing the FACP early in the RSDT array.

Thanks,
Scott