From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: n900 in next-20170901 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:01:26 +0900 Message-ID: <20170918020126.GA19200@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> 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> <20170915131817.GA19486@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170915131817.GA19486@amd> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Tony Lindgren , pali.rohar@gmail.com, sre@kernel.org, kernel list , linux-arm-kernel , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, khilman@kernel.org, aaro.koskinen@iki.fi, ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com, patrikbachan@gmail.com, serge@hallyn.com, abcloriens@gmail.com, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , Russell King List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 03:18:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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? Hello, Still not fixed in -next since I cannot regenerate the error. Thanks.