* [U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available"
@ 2014-05-30 10:33 Martin Ertsås
2014-06-01 16:42 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Ertsås @ 2014-05-30 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi.
I'm trying to use u-boot as a payload to coreboot. Problem is that when
coreboot starts u-boot, it fails with panic("No tick base available");
When looking at the backtrace this gives a recursive error, as panic
calls __udelay and get_ticks, which again panics. I heard this was
because u-boot overwrote the memory location of coreboot, and that there
have been some patches going around that fixes this issue, but have not
made it upstream. As far as I can tell, chromebook v2 uses these patches
to make their stuff boot. Can anyone point me in the right direction for
those patches? I have tried finding them myself, but can't seem to find
them.
Regards
- Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available" 2014-05-30 10:33 [U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available" Martin Ertsås @ 2014-06-01 16:42 ` Simon Glass 2014-06-02 5:59 ` Martin Ertsås 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2014-06-01 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Martin, On 30 May 2014 04:33, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi. > > I'm trying to use u-boot as a payload to coreboot. Problem is that when > coreboot starts u-boot, it fails with panic("No tick base available"); > > When looking at the backtrace this gives a recursive error, as panic > calls __udelay and get_ticks, which again panics. I heard this was > because u-boot overwrote the memory location of coreboot, and that there > have been some patches going around that fixes this issue, but have not > made it upstream. As far as I can tell, chromebook v2 uses these patches > to make their stuff boot. Can anyone point me in the right direction for > those patches? I have tried finding them myself, but can't seem to find > them. > It probably means that Coreboot is not passing its timing data to U-Boot. You need to enable a timestamp option in Coreboot to do this. You could patch it to remove this panic and just use 0 in this case. Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available" 2014-06-01 16:42 ` Simon Glass @ 2014-06-02 5:59 ` Martin Ertsås 2014-06-03 1:43 ` Simon Glass 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Martin Ertsås @ 2014-06-02 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On 06/01/14 18:42, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 30 May 2014 04:33, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I'm trying to use u-boot as a payload to coreboot. Problem is that when >> coreboot starts u-boot, it fails with panic("No tick base available"); >> >> When looking at the backtrace this gives a recursive error, as panic >> calls __udelay and get_ticks, which again panics. I heard this was >> because u-boot overwrote the memory location of coreboot, and that there >> have been some patches going around that fixes this issue, but have not >> made it upstream. As far as I can tell, chromebook v2 uses these patches >> to make their stuff boot. Can anyone point me in the right direction for >> those patches? I have tried finding them myself, but can't seem to find >> them. >> > It probably means that Coreboot is not passing its timing data to > U-Boot. You need to enable a timestamp option in Coreboot to do this. > > You could patch it to remove this panic and just use 0 in this case. > > Regards, > Simon Thanks. I'll look into the timestamp option. So using 0 as the tick value should work? - Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available" 2014-06-02 5:59 ` Martin Ertsås @ 2014-06-03 1:43 ` Simon Glass 2014-06-03 6:22 ` Martin Ertsås 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2014-06-03 1:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Martin, On 1 June 2014 23:59, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/01/14 18:42, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> On 30 May 2014 04:33, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> I'm trying to use u-boot as a payload to coreboot. Problem is that when >>> coreboot starts u-boot, it fails with panic("No tick base available"); >>> >>> When looking at the backtrace this gives a recursive error, as panic >>> calls __udelay and get_ticks, which again panics. I heard this was >>> because u-boot overwrote the memory location of coreboot, and that there >>> have been some patches going around that fixes this issue, but have not >>> made it upstream. As far as I can tell, chromebook v2 uses these patches >>> to make their stuff boot. Can anyone point me in the right direction for >>> those patches? I have tried finding them myself, but can't seem to find >>> them. >>> >> It probably means that Coreboot is not passing its timing data to >> U-Boot. You need to enable a timestamp option in Coreboot to do this. >> >> You could patch it to remove this panic and just use 0 in this case. >> >> Regards, >> Simon > > Thanks. I'll look into the timestamp option. So using 0 as the tick > value should work? Yes, although you won't get boot timing from Coreboot then. One of the engineers favoured a panic() to avoid accidentally dropping the function from Coreboot's build. Perhaps it could be changed to be a default in Coreboot? This is the second time the issue has come up in U-Boot. Also I'd be happy with printing a warning in this case if you want to do a patch. Regards, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available" 2014-06-03 1:43 ` Simon Glass @ 2014-06-03 6:22 ` Martin Ertsås 2014-06-03 16:12 ` Simon Glass 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Martin Ertsås @ 2014-06-03 6:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On 06/03/14 03:43, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 1 June 2014 23:59, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 06/01/14 18:42, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Martin, >>> >>> On 30 May 2014 04:33, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> I'm trying to use u-boot as a payload to coreboot. Problem is that when >>>> coreboot starts u-boot, it fails with panic("No tick base available"); >>>> >>>> When looking at the backtrace this gives a recursive error, as panic >>>> calls __udelay and get_ticks, which again panics. I heard this was >>>> because u-boot overwrote the memory location of coreboot, and that there >>>> have been some patches going around that fixes this issue, but have not >>>> made it upstream. As far as I can tell, chromebook v2 uses these patches >>>> to make their stuff boot. Can anyone point me in the right direction for >>>> those patches? I have tried finding them myself, but can't seem to find >>>> them. >>>> >>> It probably means that Coreboot is not passing its timing data to >>> U-Boot. You need to enable a timestamp option in Coreboot to do this. >>> >>> You could patch it to remove this panic and just use 0 in this case. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simon >> Thanks. I'll look into the timestamp option. So using 0 as the tick >> value should work? > Yes, although you won't get boot timing from Coreboot then. One of the > engineers favoured a panic() to avoid accidentally dropping the > function from Coreboot's build. Perhaps it could be changed to be a > default in Coreboot? This is the second time the issue has come up in > U-Boot. > > Also I'd be happy with printing a warning in this case if you want to > do a patch. > > Regards, Ok. Looked into enabeling it in coreboot though, but couldn't find a way to do it with a qemu machine. Guess I'll have to nag the coreboot developers a bit :) In one way it was kind of frustrating, but I do see the reason for having it as a panic though. You have probably done something wrong if you forgot to enable ticks. I don't feel like I know u-boot well enough to make a decision if it should be a panic or a warning though. If you would preffer a warning I can make the patch. - Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available" 2014-06-03 6:22 ` Martin Ertsås @ 2014-06-03 16:12 ` Simon Glass 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2014-06-03 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Martin, On 3 June 2014 00:22, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/03/14 03:43, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> On 1 June 2014 23:59, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 06/01/14 18:42, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> Hi Martin, >>>> >>>> On 30 May 2014 04:33, Martin Erts?s <martiert@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> I'm trying to use u-boot as a payload to coreboot. Problem is that when >>>>> coreboot starts u-boot, it fails with panic("No tick base available"); >>>>> >>>>> When looking at the backtrace this gives a recursive error, as panic >>>>> calls __udelay and get_ticks, which again panics. I heard this was >>>>> because u-boot overwrote the memory location of coreboot, and that there >>>>> have been some patches going around that fixes this issue, but have not >>>>> made it upstream. As far as I can tell, chromebook v2 uses these patches >>>>> to make their stuff boot. Can anyone point me in the right direction for >>>>> those patches? I have tried finding them myself, but can't seem to find >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>> It probably means that Coreboot is not passing its timing data to >>>> U-Boot. You need to enable a timestamp option in Coreboot to do this. >>>> >>>> You could patch it to remove this panic and just use 0 in this case. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Simon >>> Thanks. I'll look into the timestamp option. So using 0 as the tick >>> value should work? >> Yes, although you won't get boot timing from Coreboot then. One of the >> engineers favoured a panic() to avoid accidentally dropping the >> function from Coreboot's build. Perhaps it could be changed to be a >> default in Coreboot? This is the second time the issue has come up in >> U-Boot. >> >> Also I'd be happy with printing a warning in this case if you want to >> do a patch. >> >> Regards, > > Ok. Looked into enabeling it in coreboot though, but couldn't find a way > to do it with a qemu machine. Guess I'll have to nag the coreboot > developers a bit :) > > In one way it was kind of frustrating, but I do see the reason for > having it as a panic though. You have probably done something wrong if > you forgot to enable ticks. I don't feel like I know u-boot well enough > to make a decision if it should be a panic or a warning though. If you > would preffer a warning I can make the patch. I don't have a strong opinion, so if you are happy with it as it is, that is fine with me. But if not, please send a patch. Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-06-03 16:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-05-30 10:33 [U-Boot] coreboot and u-boot integration x86: "No tick base available" Martin Ertsås 2014-06-01 16:42 ` Simon Glass 2014-06-02 5:59 ` Martin Ertsås 2014-06-03 1:43 ` Simon Glass 2014-06-03 6:22 ` Martin Ertsås 2014-06-03 16:12 ` Simon Glass
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox