All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] rockchip: Reconfigure the malloc based to point to system memory
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:19:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <560D24BE.2040403@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1443698758.31869.104.camel@collabora.co.uk>

Hi,

On 01-10-15 13:25, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> Hey Hans,
>
> On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 12:08 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi Sjoerd,
>>
>> On 01-10-15 11:10, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
>>> When malloc_base initially gets setup in the SPL it is based on the
>>> current (early) stack pointer, which for rockchip is pointing into
>>> SRAM.
>>> This means simple memory allocations happen in SRAM space, which is
>>> somewhat unfortunate. Specifically a bounce buffer for the mmc
>>> allocated
>>> in SRAM space seems to cause the mmc engine to stall/fail causing
>>> timeouts and a failure to load the main u-boot image.
>>>
>>> To resolve this, reconfigure the malloc_base to start at the
>>> relocated
>>> stack pointer after DRAM  has been setup.
>>>
>>> For reference, things did work fine on rockchip before 596380db was
>>> merged to fix memalign_simple due to a combination of rockchip
>>> SDRAM
>>> starting at address 0 and the dw_mmc driver not checking errors
>>> from
>>> bounce_buffer_start. As a result, when a bounce buffer needed to be
>>> allocated mem_align simple would fail and return NULL. The mmc
>>> driver
>>> ignored the error and happily continued with the bounce buffer
>>> address
>>> being set to 0, which just happened to work fine..
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> A potentially better fix for this issue would be to reconfigure the
>>> malloc_base in spl_relocate_stack_gd following the same steps as is
>>> done
>>> for the initial setup.
>>
>> I actually have a patch series pending for this:
>>
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/517191/
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/517194/
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/517193/
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/517195/
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/517196/
>>
>> (I've omitted 2 uninteresting patches)
>>
>> Your review of / input on this series would be appreciated.
>
> Cool, I'll try to make some time to give that a closer look.
>
>>   > However at this point in the release cycle i
>>> preferred to do a minimal rockchip only fix (so those boards become
>>> bootable again) for this issue to minimize the potential impact on
>>> other
>>> boards.
>>
>> I agree that a minimal rockchip only fix likely is best at this time,
>> however your fix seems wrong:
>>
>>>    arch/arm/mach-rockchip/board-spl.c | 4 ++++
>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/board-spl.c b/arch/arm/mach
>>> -rockchip/board-spl.c
>>> index a241d96..5daced7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/board-spl.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/board-spl.c
>>> @@ -217,6 +217,10 @@ void board_init_f(ulong dummy)
>>>    		debug("DRAM init failed: %d\n", ret);
>>>    		return;
>>>    	}
>>> +
>>> +	/* Now that DRAM is initialized setup base pointer for
>>> simple malloc
>>> +	 * into RAM */
>>> +	gd->malloc_base = CONFIG_SPL_STACK_R_ADDR;
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    static int setup_led(void)
>>
>> SPL_STACK_R_ADDR is where the stack will be put by
>> spl_relocate_stack_gd
>> so now you've the stack and the heap overlapping.
>
> If i'm not mistaken the stack grows downward, while the heap grows
> upwards so there shouldn't be a conflict. In my understanding the
> memory layout after spl_relocate_stack_gd should look something like
> this
>
> 0x0
> .
> <misc, other>
> .
> CONFIG_SPL_STACK_ADDR_R - sizeof(gd_t): relocated Stack pointer (growing downwards)
> CONFIG_SPL_STACK_ADDR_R - sizeof(gd_t): global data
> CONFIG_SPL_STACK_ADDR_R               : Start of heap (growing upward>
> CONFIG_SPL_STACK_ADDR_R + CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN: End of heap
>
> I'm pretty sure that's correct, well either that, or i'm missing
> something obvious and spl_relocate_stack_gd doesn't make any sense (as
> it als puts the new stack pointer to start at the gd location) :)

Ah yes you're right, and since the stack grows downwards I guess
that CONFIG_SPL_STACK_ADDR_R already is not 0 for rockchip :)

You should probably still reset gd->malloc_ptr to 0, otherwise the
new DRAM heap will begin at CONFIG_SPL_STACK_ADDR_R + gd->malloc_ptr
and it will be only CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN - gd->malloc_ptr bytes
large.

Regards,

Hans

      reply	other threads:[~2015-10-01 12:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-01  9:10 [U-Boot] [PATCH] rockchip: Reconfigure the malloc based to point to system memory Sjoerd Simons
2015-10-01 10:08 ` Hans de Goede
2015-10-01 11:25   ` Sjoerd Simons
2015-10-01 12:19     ` Hans de Goede [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=560D24BE.2040403@redhat.com \
    --to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.