* [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