From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pavel@ucw.cz (Pavel Machek) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:18:18 +0200 Subject: n900 in next-20170901 In-Reply-To: <20170907161650.GP5024@atomide.com> References: <20170903203737.GA12475@amd> <20170905201314.GE5024@atomide.com> <20170905233241.GA19231@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> <20170906133057.GH5024@atomide.com> <20170907073038.GA2111@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> <20170907161650.GP5024@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20170915131817.GA19486@amd> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi! > > After commit 9caf25f996e8, user for CMA memory should use to check > > PageHighmem in order to get proper virtual address of the page. If > > someone doesn't use it, it is possible to use wrong virtual address > > and it then causes the use of wrong physical address. > > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL would catch this case. > > OK, no extra output of current next with CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y. > Booting of n900 hangs with just the same error: > > save_secure_sram() returns 0000ff02 > > > If it doesn't help, is there a way to test n900 configuration in QEMU? > > I doubt that QEMU n900 boots in secure mode but instead shows > the SoC as general purpose SoC. If so, you'd have to patch the > omap3_save_secure_ram_context() to attempt to save secure RAM > context in all cases. If that works then debugging with any > omap3 board like beagleboard in QEMU should work. Okay, linux-next from today still does not boot on n900. Is it something new, or was this still not fixed in -next? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: