build service results for r4795

[coreboot information]

Dear coreboot readers!

This is the automatic build system of coreboot.

The developer "myles" checked in revision 4795 to
the coreboot repository. This caused the following 
changes:

Change Log:
Revert deletion that snuck in to 4794.  Sorry.

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson 
Acked-by: Myles Watson

Build Log:
Compilation of a-trend:atc-6220 has been fixed
Compilation of a-trend:atc-6240 has been fixed
Compilation of abit:be6-ii_v2_0 has been fixed
Compilation of advantech:pcm-5820 has been fixed
Compilation of amd:db800 is still broken
See the error log at http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4795&device=db800&v...
Compilation of amd:dbm690t has been fixed
Compilation of amd:norwich has been fixed
Compilation of amd:pistachio has been fixed
Compilation of amd:rumba has been fixed
Compilation of amd:serengeti_cheetah has been fixed
Compilation of amd:serengeti_cheetah_fam10 has been fixed
Compilation of arima:hdama has been fixed
Compilation of artecgroup:dbe61 has been fixed
Compilation of asi:mb_5blgp has been fixed
Compilation of asi:mb_5blmp has been fixed
Compilation of asus:a8n_e has been fixed
Compilation of asus:a8v-e_se has been fixed
Compilation of asus:m2v-mx_se has been fixed
Compilation of asus:mew-am has been fixed
Compilation of asus:mew-vm has been fixed
Compilation of asus:p2b has been fixed
Compilation of asus:p2b-d has been fixed
Compilation of asus:p2b-ds has been fixed
Compilation of asus:p2b-f has been fixed
Compilation of asus:p3b-f has been fixed
Compilation of axus:tc320 has been fixed
Compilation of azza:pt-6ibd has been fixed
Compilation of bcom:winnet100 has been fixed
Compilation of bcom:winnetp680 has been fixed
Compilation of biostar:m6tba has been fixed
Compilation of broadcom:blast has been fixed
Compilation of compaq:deskpro_en_sff_p600 has been fixed
Compilation of dell:s1850 has been fixed
Compilation of digitallogic:adl855pc has been fixed
Compilation of digitallogic:msm586seg has been fixed
Compilation of digitallogic:msm800sev is still broken
See the error log at http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4795&device=msm800sev&a...
Compilation of eaglelion:5bcm has been fixed
Compilation of emulation:qemu-x86 has been fixed
Compilation of gigabyte:ga-6bxc has been fixed
Compilation of gigabyte:ga_2761gxdk has been fixed
Compilation of gigabyte:m57sli has been fixed
Compilation of hp:dl145_g3 has been fixed
Compilation of ibm:e325 has been fixed
Compilation of ibm:e326 has been fixed
Compilation of iei:juki-511p has been fixed
Compilation of iei:nova4899r has been fixed
Compilation of iei:pcisa-lx-800-r10 has been fixed
Compilation of intel:eagleheights has been fixed
Compilation of intel:jarrell has been fixed
Compilation of intel:mtarvon has been fixed
Compilation of intel:truxton has been fixed
Compilation of intel:xe7501devkit has been fixed
Compilation of iwill:dk8_htx has been fixed
Compilation of iwill:dk8s2 has been fixed
Compilation of iwill:dk8x has been fixed
Compilation of jetway:j7f24 has been fixed
Compilation of kontron:986lcd-m has been fixed
Compilation of kontron:kt690 has been fixed
Compilation of lippert:frontrunner has been fixed
Compilation of lippert:roadrunner-lx has been fixed
Compilation of lippert:spacerunner-lx has been fixed
Compilation of mitac:6513wu has been fixed
Compilation of msi:ms6119 has been fixed
Compilation of msi:ms6147 has been fixed
Compilation of msi:ms6156 has been fixed
Compilation of msi:ms6178 has been fixed
Compilation of msi:ms7135 has been fixed
Compilation of msi:ms7260 has been fixed
Compilation of msi:ms9185 has been fixed
Compilation of msi:ms9282 has been fixed
Compilation of nec:powermate2000 has been fixed
Compilation of newisys:khepri has been fixed
Compilation of nvidia:l1_2pvv has been fixed
Compilation of olpc:btest has been fixed
Compilation of olpc:rev_a has been fixed
Compilation of pcengines:alix1c has been fixed
Compilation of rca:rm4100 has been fixed
Compilation of soyo:sy-6ba-plus-iii has been fixed
Compilation of sunw:ultra40 has been fixed
Compilation of supermicro:h8dme has been fixed
Compilation of supermicro:h8dmr has been fixed
Compilation of supermicro:h8dmr_fam10 has been fixed
Compilation of supermicro:x6dai_g has been fixed
Compilation of supermicro:x6dhe_g has been fixed
Compilation of supermicro:x6dhe_g2 has been fixed
Compilation of supermicro:x6dhr_ig has been fixed
Compilation of supermicro:x6dhr_ig2 has been fixed
Compilation of technexion:tim5690 has been fixed
Compilation of technexion:tim8690 has been fixed
Compilation of technologic:ts5300 has been fixed
Compilation of televideo:tc7020 has been fixed
Compilation of thomson:ip1000 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s1846 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2735 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2850 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2875 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2880 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2881 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2882 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2885 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2891 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2892 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2895 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2912 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s2912_fam10 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s4880 has been fixed
Compilation of tyan:s4882 has been fixed
Compilation of via:epia has been fixed
Compilation of via:epia-cn has been fixed
Compilation of via:epia-m has been fixed
Compilation of via:epia-m700 has been fixed
Compilation of via:epia-n has been fixed
Compilation of via:pc2500e has been fixed
Compilation of via:vt8454c has been fixed

If something broke during this checkin please be a pain 
in myles's neck until the issue is fixed.

If this issue is not fixed within 24h the revision should 
be backed out.

Best regards,
     coreboot automatic build system

[Myles Watson]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM, coreboot information
wrote:
> Dear coreboot readers!
>
> This is the automatic build system of coreboot.
>
> The developer "myles" checked in revision 4795 to
> the coreboot repository. This caused the following
> changes:
>
> Change Log:
> Revert deletion that snuck in to 4794.  Sorry.
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson 
> Acked-by: Myles Watson
>
> Build Log:
> Compilation of a-trend:atc-6220 has been fixed
> ...
> Compilation of amd:db800 is still broken
> See the error log at
> http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4795&device=db800&v...
> ...
> Compilation of digitallogic:msm800sev is still broken
> See the error log at
> http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4795&device=msm800sev&a...
>
> These boards build for me and have 64K left in the ROM.  How can there be

that big of a difference between my build system and this one?

Anybody know why they have 128K bootblocks?  It seems a little large.

Thanks,
Myles

[Peter Stuge]

Myles Watson wrote:
> > Compilation of amd:db800 is still broken
> > Compilation of digitallogic:msm800sev is still broken
>
> These boards build for me and have 64K left in the ROM.  How can
> there be that big of a difference between my build system and this
> one?

I don't know.
> Anybody know why they have 128K bootblocks?  It seems a little
> large.

I just talked to Patrick about this on IRC - the second numeric
parameter is legacy only, it's not used for reserving space.

//Peter

[Myles Watson]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Peter Stuge  wrote:
> Myles Watson wrote:
> > > Compilation of amd:db800 is still broken
> > > Compilation of digitallogic:msm800sev is still broken
> >
> > These boards build for me and have 64K left in the ROM.  How can
> > there be that big of a difference between my build system and this
> > one?
>
> I don't know.
> > Anybody know why they have 128K bootblocks?  It seems a little
> > large.
>
> I just talked to Patrick about this on IRC - the second numeric
> parameter is legacy only, it's not used for reserving space.

./cbfs/cbfstool ./coreboot.rom create 262144 131072 ./coreboot.rom.bootblock
./cbfs/cbfstool ./coreboot.rom add-stage normal/coreboot_ram
normal/coreboot_ram
...
./coreboot.rom: 256 kB, bootblocksize 131072, romsize 262144, offset 0x0
Alignment: 64 bytes

Name                           Offset     Type         Size
normal/coreboot_ram            0x0        stage        31764
fallback/coreboot_ram          0x7c80     stage        31765
                               0xf900     null         67256

The bootblock is 128K because normal/coreboot.rom and fallback/coreboot.rom
are each 64K. It seems larger than necessary, but it shouldn't matter
becuase there's still almost 64K left.

Thanks,
Myles

[Stefan Reinauer]

Myles Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM, coreboot information
> <[e-mail] > wrote:
> Dear coreboot readers!
>
> This is the automatic build system of coreboot.
>
> The developer "myles" checked in revision 4795 to
> the coreboot repository. This caused the following
> changes:
>
> Change Log:
> Revert deletion that snuck in to 4794.  Sorry.
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Acked-by: Myles Watson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>
> Build Log:
> Compilation of a-trend:atc-6220 has been fixed
> ...
> Compilation of amd:db800 is still broken
> See the error log at
> http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4795&device=db800&vendor=amd&num=2
> <http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4795&device=db800&vendor=amd&num=2>
> ...
> Compilation of digitallogic:msm800sev is still broken
> See the error log at
> http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4795&device=msm800sev&vendor=digitallogic&num=2
> <http://qa.coreboot.org/log_buildbrd.php?revision=4795&device=msm800sev&vendor=digitallogic&num=2>
>
> These boards build for me and have 64K left in the ROM.  How can there
> be that big of a difference between my build system and this one?

Maybe you build them without payloads? 64k sounds quite tight for two
payloads, even though it's "just" an old filo...
> Anybody know why they have 128K bootblocks?  It seems a little large.

Can we reduce that? Patrick?

Stefan

[Myles Watson]

> > These boards build for me and have 64K left in the ROM.  How can there
> > be that big of a difference between my build system and this one?
>
> Maybe you build them without payloads? 64k sounds quite tight for two
> payloads, even though it's "just" an old filo...

You're right.  I hadn't realized that abuild adds a payload on the server.
> > Anybody know why they have 128K bootblocks?  It seems a little large.
>
> Can we reduce that? Patrick?

Index: src/mainboard/digitallogic/msm800sev/Options.lb
===================================================================
--- src/mainboard/digitallogic/msm800sev/Options.lb    (revision 4795)
+++ src/mainboard/digitallogic/msm800sev/Options.lb    (working copy)
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
 ###

## CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE is the amount of space to allow coreboot to
occupy.
-default CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE = 65536
+default CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE = 32768
 default CONFIG_FALLBACK_SIZE = CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE

##
Index: src/mainboard/amd/db800/Options.lb
===================================================================
--- src/mainboard/amd/db800/Options.lb    (revision 4795)
+++ src/mainboard/amd/db800/Options.lb    (working copy)
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
 ###

## CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE is the amount of space to allow coreboot to
occupy.
-default CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE = 65536
+default CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE = 32768
 default CONFIG_FALLBACK_SIZE = CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE

##

Passes abuild for me.

Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

Thanks,
Myles

[Peter Stuge]

Myles Watson wrote:
> > > Anybody know why they have 128K bootblocks?  It seems a little large.
> >
> > Can we reduce that? Patrick?

It isn't 128k. That number is not used. cbfstool adjusts the size.
> Index: src/mainboard/digitallogic/msm800sev/Options.lb
>
> --- src/mainboard/digitallogic/msm800sev/Options.lb    (revision 4795)
> +++ src/mainboard/digitallogic/msm800sev/Options.lb    (working copy)
> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
>  ###
>
> ## CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE is the amount of space to allow coreboot to
> occupy.
> -default CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE = 65536
> +default CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE = 32768
>  default CONFIG_FALLBACK_SIZE = CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE
>
> ##
> Index: src/mainboard/amd/db800/Options.lb
> ===================================================================
> --- src/mainboard/amd/db800/Options.lb    (revision 4795)
> +++ src/mainboard/amd/db800/Options.lb    (working copy)
> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
>  ###
>
> ## CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE is the amount of space to allow coreboot to
> occupy.
> -default CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE = 65536
> +default CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE = 32768
>  default CONFIG_FALLBACK_SIZE = CONFIG_ROM_IMAGE_SIZE
>
> ##
>
> Passes abuild for me.
>
> Signed-off-by: Myles Watson

Acked-by: Peter Stuge

[Myles Watson]

> Myles Watson wrote:
> > > > Anybody know why they have 128K bootblocks?  It seems a little
>
> large.
> > > Can we reduce that? Patrick?
>
> It isn't 128k. That number is not used. cbfstool adjusts the size.

The 128K was for normal + fallback.  Bootblock sizes are fixed, not adjusted
by cbfstool.
> > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson
>
> Acked-by: Peter Stuge

Thanks.  Sorry I was impatient.

Myles

[Peter Stuge]

Myles Watson wrote:
> > > > > Anybody know why they have 128K bootblocks?  It seems a little
> > > > > large.
> > > >
> > > > Can we reduce that? Patrick?
> >
> > It isn't 128k. That number is not used. cbfstool adjusts the size.
>
> The 128K was for normal + fallback.

Ok.
> Bootblock sizes are fixed, not adjusted by cbfstool.

I misunderstood Patrick on IRC then. That's very possible.
> > Acked-by: Peter Stuge
>
> Thanks.  Sorry I was impatient.

No problem! As long as it got in. :)

//Peter