[coreboot] Boot issues (CBFS?) on VIA pc2500e

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: coreboot-bounces+mylesgw=gmail.com at coreboot.org [mailto:coreboot-
> bounces+mylesgw=gmail.com at coreboot.org] On Behalf Of Uwe Hermann
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:31 PM
> To: coreboot at coreboot.org
> Subject: [coreboot] Boot issues (CBFS?) on VIA pc2500e
> 
> Hi,
> 
> tried to boot-test the VIA p2500e yesterday, but tried a manual
> non-kconfig build first, and that one doesn't successfully boot anymore
> and thus needs to be fixed first.
> 
> The cfbs output was (I used a FILO payload):
> 
> Name                           Offset     Type         Size
> fallback/payload               0x0        payload      85864
> fallback/coreboot_ram          0x14fc0    stage        35069
>                                0x1d900    null         337592
> 
> Here's a bootlog, there's a "hang" at the end, no further output on
> serial afterwards. Any ideas what the issue may be?
It doesn't look like a place I would expect CBFS to be the issue.

> tomk is 0x80000
> tom: 20000000, high_tables_base: 1fff0000, high_tables_size: 10000
512M of RAM = 0x20000000, 64K for high tables.
...
> High Tables Base is 1fff0000.
> Copying Interrupt Routing Table to 0x000f0000... done.
> Copying Interrupt Routing Table to 0x1fff0000... done.
> Wrote the mp table end at: 000f0410 - 000f0568
> Wrote the mp table end at: 1fff0410 - 2001040e
Writing high tables above RAM!  Why is the high MP table so much larger than
the low one?
 
> Moving GDT to 0x20010800...ok
> Multiboot Information structure has been written.
> Writing high table forward entry at 0x00000500
> Wrote coreboot table at: 00000500 - 00000518  checksum d3dd
> New low_table_end: 0x00000518
> Now going to write high coreboot table at 0x20010c00
> rom_table_end = 0x20010c00
> Adjust low_table_end from 0x00000518 to 0x00001000 
> Adjust rom_table_end from 0x20010c00 to 0x20020000
And more writing above RAM.

I don't know that that is the cause of your trouble, but it isn't good.  An
easy thing to try would be to increase high_tables_size to 0x40000 and see
if you get anything different.  I'm surprised that your mp table is so
large.  Maybe that's where the real problem is?

Thanks,
Myles