fcode rom loading

[Bob Breuer]

I'm trying to get the sparc32 OpenBIOS to load an fcode rom, but it's
not working.  After byte-load, it reports out of memory.

Here's the steps I'm using to setup a simple rom which just sets the
device name to "QEMU,test", and then trying to run it:
fd000000 1000 l!
00000020 1004 l!
12095145 1008 l!
4d552c74 100c l!
65737401 1010 l!
1412046e 1014 l!
616d6501 1018 l!
10000000 101c l!
cd /iommu/sbus
" /iommu/sbus" select-dev
new-device
1000 1 byte-load

Here, OpenBIOS will report out of memory.

Bob

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

On 27/06/11 18:24, Bob Breuer wrote:
> I'm trying to get the sparc32 OpenBIOS to load an fcode rom, but it's
> not working.  After byte-load, it reports out of memory.
>
> Here's the steps I'm using to setup a simple rom which just sets the
> device name to "QEMU,test", and then trying to run it:
> fd000000 1000 l!
> 00000020 1004 l!
> 12095145 1008 l!
> 4d552c74 100c l!
> 65737401 1010 l!
> 1412046e 1014 l!
> 616d6501 1018 l!
> 10000000 101c l!
> cd /iommu/sbus
> " /iommu/sbus" select-dev
> new-device
> 1000 1 byte-load
>
> Here, OpenBIOS will report out of memory.

Hmmm that's interesting - I'm not sure that anyone has played with Fcode 
on SPARC32 before (goes and looks...).

Looks as if there isn't enough memory within Forth to initialise the 
Fcode tables on SPARC32:

0 > debug alloc-fcode-table
Stepper keys: <space>/<enter> Up Down Trace Rstack Forth
  ok
0 > alloc-fcode-table
: alloc-fcode-table  ( Empty )
ffd29320: (lit)  ( 4096 )
ffd29328: cells  ( 10258 )
ffd2932c: alloc-mem  out of memory.
0 >

Wow - 0x10258 is 66Kbytes which is more than enough to saturate the 
Forth memory. You may be able to get things further by increasing 
MEMORY_SIZE in arch/sparc32/openbios.c, but you'll probably hit the 2M 
limit for the ELF image size before you get there :(

Does anyone else have a better idea as to how we could better allocate 
the memory or reduce the memory requirement for the Fcode table? Could 
we allocate a region of memory using the OFMEM API rather than internal 
Forth memory for instance?

ATB,

Mark.

[Bob Breuer]

Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 27/06/11 18:24, Bob Breuer wrote:
> > I'm trying to get the sparc32 OpenBIOS to load an fcode rom, but it's
> > not working.  After byte-load, it reports out of memory.
> >
> > Here's the steps I'm using to setup a simple rom which just sets the
> > device name to "QEMU,test", and then trying to run it:
> > fd000000 1000 l!
> > 00000020 1004 l!
> > 12095145 1008 l!
> > 4d552c74 100c l!
> > 65737401 1010 l!
> > 1412046e 1014 l!
> > 616d6501 1018 l!
> > 10000000 101c l!
> > cd /iommu/sbus
> > " /iommu/sbus" select-dev
> > new-device
> > 1000 1 byte-load
> >
> > Here, OpenBIOS will report out of memory.
>
> Hmmm that's interesting - I'm not sure that anyone has played with Fcode
> on SPARC32 before (goes and looks...).
>
> Looks as if there isn't enough memory within Forth to initialise the
> Fcode tables on SPARC32:
>
> 0 > debug alloc-fcode-table
> Stepper keys: <space>/<enter> Up Down Trace Rstack Forth
>  ok
> 0 > alloc-fcode-table
> : alloc-fcode-table  ( Empty )
> ffd29320: (lit)  ( 4096 )
> ffd29328: cells  ( 10258 )
> ffd2932c: alloc-mem  out of memory.
> 0 >
>
> Wow - 0x10258 is 66Kbytes which is more than enough to saturate the
> Forth memory. You may be able to get things further by increasing
> MEMORY_SIZE in arch/sparc32/openbios.c, but you'll probably hit the 2M
> limit for the ELF image size before you get there :(
>
> Does anyone else have a better idea as to how we could better allocate
> the memory or reduce the memory requirement for the Fcode table? Could
> we allocate a region of memory using the OFMEM API rather than internal
> Forth memory for instance?

Just missed your reply, see my other email for my analysis.  The 16k
limit seems awfully small.

I've tried bumping the memory size in openbios.c from 16k to 160k, but
then I think I ran into the 256k limit.  Unless there's some power-of-2
size restriction.

I could run some more tests on an SS-20 if seeing what OBP does will
help in any way.

Bob

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

On 28/06/11 15:02, Bob Breuer wrote:
> Just missed your reply, see my other email for my analysis.  The 16k
> limit seems awfully small.
>
> I've tried bumping the memory size in openbios.c from 16k to 160k, but
> then I think I ran into the 256k limit.  Unless there's some power-of-2
> size restriction.
>
> I could run some more tests on an SS-20 if seeing what OBP does will
> help in any way.

I think in actual fact your test here proves it:

ok 400000 alloc-mem
   ok .s
   fe7fdff8

Obviously there is no way that amount of memory can be allocated between 
0xffd00000 and 0xffffffff and so it must be using sections of memory 
outside of the ROM space.

I think that the way forward would be to remove the Forth 
implementations of alloc-mem and instead use the OFMEM API to grab 
sections of memory. There are two slight hurdles to this though:

- Not all architectures implement the OFMEM API (it is missing for ia64, 
amd64 and x86)

- Some of the Forth purists may dislike removing Forth and using C instead

My personal perspective is that I don't see there is much gain in trying 
to rework OFMEM in Forth and I see very few volunteers to do this so 
realistically this is a non-argument.

In terms of supporting other architectures, I think this wouldn't be too 
hard either - simply write the OFMEM functions so that they use the 
internal malloc()/free() functions which will use internal address space 
in the same was as alloc-mem does now. This basic stub implementation 
could then be copied to the remaining 3 architectures leaving the 
existing functionality in place until someone wants to come and write 
proper MMU-aware OFMEM handlers.

Once this is in place, switching alloc-mem over to use OFMEM is a really 
trivial exercise which would then permanently solve the memory space 
issue. I'd also be happy to help advise/work on any patches you have in 
this area, even if you just put forward an experimental SPARC32-only 
alloc-mem rewrite in C using OFMEM to help get you further along the way.

ATB,

Mark.

[Bob Breuer]

Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 28/06/11 15:02, Bob Breuer wrote:
> > Just missed your reply, see my other email for my analysis.  The 16k
> > limit seems awfully small.
> >
> > I've tried bumping the memory size in openbios.c from 16k to 160k, but
> > then I think I ran into the 256k limit.  Unless there's some power-of-2
> > size restriction.
> >
> > I could run some more tests on an SS-20 if seeing what OBP does will
> > help in any way.
>
> I think in actual fact your test here proves it:
>
> ok 400000 alloc-mem
>   ok .s
>   fe7fdff8
>
> Obviously there is no way that amount of memory can be allocated between
> 0xffd00000 and 0xffffffff and so it must be using sections of memory
> outside of the ROM space.
>
> I think that the way forward would be to remove the Forth
> implementations of alloc-mem and instead use the OFMEM API to grab
> sections of memory. There are two slight hurdles to this though:
> Not all architectures implement the OFMEM API (it is missing for ia64,
>
> amd64 and x86)
> Some of the Forth purists may dislike removing Forth and using C instead
>
> My personal perspective is that I don't see there is much gain in trying
> to rework OFMEM in Forth and I see very few volunteers to do this so
> realistically this is a non-argument.
>
> In terms of supporting other architectures, I think this wouldn't be too
> hard either - simply write the OFMEM functions so that they use the
> internal malloc()/free() functions which will use internal address space
> in the same was as alloc-mem does now. This basic stub implementation
> could then be copied to the remaining 3 architectures leaving the
> existing functionality in place until someone wants to come and write
> proper MMU-aware OFMEM handlers.
>
> Once this is in place, switching alloc-mem over to use OFMEM is a really
> trivial exercise which would then permanently solve the memory space
> issue. I'd also be happy to help advise/work on any patches you have in
> this area, even if you just put forward an experimental SPARC32-only
> alloc-mem rewrite in C using OFMEM to help get you further along the way.

Maybe the 4096 in hex is a mistake, and it was intended to be 4096
decimal.  For now, this patch (probably mangled by my mailer) seems to work:

Index: arch/sparc32/openbios.c
===================================================================
--- arch/sparc32/openbios.c     (revision 1044)
+++ arch/sparc32/openbios.c     (working copy)
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
 #include "arch/common/fw_cfg.h"
 #include "libopenbios/ofmem.h"

-#define MEMORY_SIZE     (16*1024)       /* 16K ram for hosted system */
+#define MEMORY_SIZE     (128*1024)      /* 128K ram for hosted system */
 #define UUID_FMT
"%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x"
 #define FW_CFG_SUN4M_DEPTH   (FW_CFG_ARCH_LOCAL + 0x00)

Index: arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
===================================================================
--- arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c        (revision 1044)
+++ arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c        (working copy)
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@

#define OF_MALLOC_BASE         ((char*)OFMEM +
ALIGN_SIZE(sizeof(ofmem_t), 8))

-#define MEMSIZE (256 * 1024)
+#define MEMSIZE (512 * 1024)
 static union {
        char memory[MEMSIZE];
        ofmem_t ofmem;

I'll take another look at this after shaking out a few more possible bugs.

Next up is my-address and my-space.  Under OBP on an SS-20, I can do this:
  ok " /iommu/sbus" select-dev
  ok new-device
  ok 0 0 " 1,abc" set-args
  ok my-address . my-space .
  abc 1
With OpenBIOS, I just get zeros for both my-address and my-space.

While skimming the IEEE-1275 spec, I found begin-package, which under
OpenBIOS does set my-address and my-space correctly.  Am I just missing
something, or could there be a bug in either set-args or new-device?

Bob

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

On 30/06/11 19:40, Bob Breuer wrote:
> Maybe the 4096 in hex is a mistake, and it was intended to be 4096
> decimal.  For now, this patch (probably mangled by my mailer) seems to work:
> Index: arch/sparc32/openbios.c
>
> --- arch/sparc32/openbios.c     (revision 1044)
> +++ arch/sparc32/openbios.c     (working copy)
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>   #include "arch/common/fw_cfg.h"
>   #include "libopenbios/ofmem.h"
>
> -#define MEMORY_SIZE     (16*1024)       /* 16K ram for hosted system */
> +#define MEMORY_SIZE     (128*1024)      /* 128K ram for hosted system */
>   #define UUID_FMT
> "%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x"
>   #define FW_CFG_SUN4M_DEPTH   (FW_CFG_ARCH_LOCAL + 0x00)
> Index: arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
>
> --- arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c        (revision 1044)
> +++ arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c        (working copy)
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
>
> #define OF_MALLOC_BASE         ((char*)OFMEM +
> ALIGN_SIZE(sizeof(ofmem_t), 8))
>
> -#define MEMSIZE (256 * 1024)
> +#define MEMSIZE (512 * 1024)
>   static union {
>          char memory[MEMSIZE];
>          ofmem_t ofmem;
>
> I'll take another look at this after shaking out a few more possible bugs.

Ooooh so you can get away with re-arranging the internal memory space to 
find enough space for the fcode tables after all - nice one :)
> Next up is my-address and my-space.  Under OBP on an SS-20, I can do this:
>    ok " /iommu/sbus" select-dev
>    ok new-device
>    ok 0 0 " 1,abc" set-args
>    ok my-address . my-space .
>    abc 1
> With OpenBIOS, I just get zeros for both my-address and my-space.
>
> While skimming the IEEE-1275 spec, I found begin-package, which under
> OpenBIOS does set my-address and my-space correctly.  Am I just missing
> something, or could there be a bug in either set-args or new-device?

Possibly. Bear in mind that OpenBIOS now has a source debugger so you 
can try something like:

" /iommu/sbus" select-dev
new-device
0 0 " 1,abc"
debug set-args
set-args

...and off you go.

HTH,

Mark.

[Bob Breuer]

Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
[ snip ]
> > Next up is my-address and my-space.  Under OBP on an SS-20, I can do
> > this:
> >    ok " /iommu/sbus" select-dev
> >    ok new-device
> >    ok 0 0 " 1,abc" set-args
> >    ok my-address . my-space .
> >    abc 1
> > With OpenBIOS, I just get zeros for both my-address and my-space.
> >
> > While skimming the IEEE-1275 spec, I found begin-package, which under
> > OpenBIOS does set my-address and my-space correctly.  Am I just missing
> > something, or could there be a bug in either set-args or new-device?
>
> Possibly. Bear in mind that OpenBIOS now has a source debugger so you
> can try something like:
>
> " /iommu/sbus" select-dev
> new-device
> 0 0 " 1,abc"
> debug set-args
> set-args
>
> ...and off you go.

I've found the cause - my-self was still 0 when calling new-device, so
the $call-parent in set-args was failing.  OpenBIOS treats select-dev
and open-dev as the same, but they are not, see the of1275 errata for
section H.8.  Most importantly, open-dev does not set my-self, while
select-dev does.

OBP uses select-dev to make begin-package almost trivial, as in
: begin-package  ( ... )
   select-dev new-device set-args
;

Any objection to simplifying the OpenBIOS version of begin-package to
match the OBP version, and moving the extra logic from begin-package
into select-dev?

Bob

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

On 13/07/11 16:24, Bob Breuer wrote:
> I've found the cause - my-self was still 0 when calling new-device, so
> the $call-parent in set-args was failing.  OpenBIOS treats select-dev
> and open-dev as the same, but they are not, see the of1275 errata for
> section H.8.  Most importantly, open-dev does not set my-self, while
> select-dev does.
>
> OBP uses select-dev to make begin-package almost trivial, as in
> : begin-package  ( ... )
>     select-dev new-device set-args
> ;
>
> Any objection to simplifying the OpenBIOS version of begin-package to
> match the OBP version, and moving the extra logic from begin-package
> into select-dev?

That sounds sensible, so none from this end. If you post a patch, I'll 
test it on my various CD images and make sure it doesn't cause any Fcode 
regressions there.

ATB,

Mark.

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

On 30/06/11 19:40, Bob Breuer wrote:
> Maybe the 4096 in hex is a mistake, and it was intended to be 4096
> decimal.  For now, this patch (probably mangled by my mailer) seems to work:

Hmmm that patch doesn't work for me as it exceeds the QEMU image size :( 
  However it does seem to work okay if you drop the memory from 512K to 
384K. Can you confirm that the patch below works for you? If so, I'll 
tidy it up and commit.

diff --git a/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c 
b/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
index 671d11b..bd52538 100644
--- a/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
+++ b/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@

#define OF_MALLOC_BASE         ((char*)OFMEM + 
ALIGN_SIZE(sizeof(ofmem_t), 8))

-#define MEMSIZE (256 * 1024)
+#define MEMSIZE (384 * 1024)
  static union {
         char memory[MEMSIZE];
         ofmem_t ofmem;
diff --git a/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/openbios.c 
b/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/openbios.c
index 6915486..d5d453d 100644
--- a/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/openbios.c
+++ b/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/openbios.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
  #include "arch/common/fw_cfg.h"
  #include "libopenbios/ofmem.h"

-#define MEMORY_SIZE     (16*1024)       /* 16K ram for hosted system */
+#define MEMORY_SIZE     (128*1024)       /* 128K ram for hosted system */
  #define UUID_FMT 
"%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x"
  #define FW_CFG_SUN4M_DEPTH   (FW_CFG_ARCH_LOCAL + 0x00)

ATB,

Mark.

[Bob Breuer]

Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 30/06/11 19:40, Bob Breuer wrote:
> > Maybe the 4096 in hex is a mistake, and it was intended to be 4096
> > decimal.  For now, this patch (probably mangled by my mailer) seems to
> > work:
>
> Hmmm that patch doesn't work for me as it exceeds the QEMU image size :(
>  However it does seem to work okay if you drop the memory from 512K to
> 384K. Can you confirm that the patch below works for you? If so, I'll
> tidy it up and commit.

Yes, 384K works for me.  Seems that I had used the stripped openbios,
but I do see a failure with 512K and an unstripped openbios.  I guess
the debug symbols pushed it past some QEMU limit.

Acked-by: Bob Breuer
> diff --git a/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
> b/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
> index 671d11b..bd52538 100644
> --- a/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
> +++ b/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
>
> #define OF_MALLOC_BASE         ((char*)OFMEM +
> ALIGN_SIZE(sizeof(ofmem_t), 8))
>
> -#define MEMSIZE (256 * 1024)
> +#define MEMSIZE (384 * 1024)
>  static union {
>         char memory[MEMSIZE];
>         ofmem_t ofmem;
> diff --git a/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/openbios.c
> b/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/openbios.c
> index 6915486..d5d453d 100644
> --- a/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/openbios.c
> +++ b/openbios-devel/arch/sparc32/openbios.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>  #include "arch/common/fw_cfg.h"
>  #include "libopenbios/ofmem.h"
>
> -#define MEMORY_SIZE     (16*1024)       /* 16K ram for hosted system */
> +#define MEMORY_SIZE     (128*1024)       /* 128K ram for hosted system */
>  #define UUID_FMT
> "%02x%02x%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x-%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x%02x"
>  #define FW_CFG_SUN4M_DEPTH   (FW_CFG_ARCH_LOCAL + 0x00)
>
> ATB,
>
> Mark.

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

On 09/07/11 07:08, Bob Breuer wrote:
> Yes, 384K works for me.  Seems that I had used the stripped openbios,
> but I do see a failure with 512K and an unstripped openbios.  I guess
> the debug symbols pushed it past some QEMU limit.
>
> Acked-by: Bob Breuer

Thanks a lot - committed. It's always worth doing a full debug build 
before submitting a patch as it's a good way of finding any memory 
overflow errors that may have accidentally crept in.

ATB,

Mark.

[Bob Breuer]

Bob Breuer wrote:
> I'm trying to get the sparc32 OpenBIOS to load an fcode rom, but it's
> not working.  After byte-load, it reports out of memory.
>
> Here's the steps I'm using to setup a simple rom which just sets the
> device name to "QEMU,test", and then trying to run it:
> fd000000 1000 l!
> 00000020 1004 l!
> 12095145 1008 l!
> 4d552c74 100c l!
> 65737401 1010 l!
> 1412046e 1014 l!
> 616d6501 1018 l!
> 10000000 101c l!
> cd /iommu/sbus
> " /iommu/sbus" select-dev
> new-device
> 1000 1 byte-load
>
> Here, OpenBIOS will report out of memory.

Turns out you don't even need any fcode to trigger this, as it does the
failing allocation in alloc-fcode-table:
  4096 cells alloc-mem to fcode-table
Which looks like it tries to allocate 64k.

In arch/sparc32/openbios.c, MEMORY_SIZE is defined to 16k, which I think
will limit the malloc size.  There's another define of 256k in
arch/sparc32/ofmem_sparc32.c that may also affect this.

On an SS-20, I can allocate at least 4M without problem:
  ok 400000 alloc-mem
  ok .s
  fe7fdff8

Are there any known problems with bumping up the size for both the 16k
and 256k limits?

Bob