On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 04:03:01PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 02.08.21 15:04, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 01:54:57PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 02.08.21 13:38, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> On 8/2/21 1:36 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> On 02.08.21 12:48, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>> On 8/2/21 11:37 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>>>> On 02.08.21 02:54, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>> On 7/29/21 6:58 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> so when did rcar3 introduce something there that shouldn't be > >>>>>>>>>> reserved?  And you had phrased this to me on IRC as about reserving > >>>>>>>>>> spot > >>>>>>>>>> for ATAGS, and that not being needed of course on arm64.  But > >>>>>>>>>> that's > >>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>> what's going on.  Perhaps the answer is that rcar3 needs to > >>>>>>>>>> introduce a > >>>>>>>>>> board_lmb_reserve to free the normal arch one and provide whatever > >>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>> narrow scope it needs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Based on the commit message 2359fa7a878 ("arm: bootm: Disable LMB > >>>>>>>>> reservation for command line and board info on arm64") , this is > >>>>>>>>> about ATAGS > >>>>>>>>> and we really don't need to reserve those on arm64. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Commit 2359fa7a878 disables the entire arch_lmb_reserve function on > >>>>>>>> aarch64, yes.  I assumed when we had talked that it was a small area > >>>>>>>> being set aside and perhaps mis-recalled that ATAGS tended to live at > >>>>>>>> DDR_BASE + 0x800 or so. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That arch_lmb_reserve() is responsible for reserving architecture > >>>>>>> specific memory. On arm32 it is ATAGS, on arm64 it is nothing as > >>>>>>> far as > >>>>>>> I can tell (and see below regarding the TLB). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This reservation is not at that spot, and a lot > >>>>>>>> more than that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Can you please elaborate on this "lot more" part ? Because as much > >>>>>>> as I > >>>>>>> studied the reservation code, the "lot more" was ATAGS on arm32 and > >>>>>>> nothing on arm64. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> See my commit log. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is not particularly useful answer, considering the commit log says: > >>>>> "lot of crucial things", "Possibly more", "likely also on other boards" > >>>>> and other opaque statements. But really, the problem so far happens on > >>>>> one K3 board. > >>>> > >>>> "Such things are the page table (tlb_addr), > >>>> relocated U-Boot and the active stack." > >>> > >>> Please read the rest of my answer, I don't believe the TLB should be > >>> reserved at all. DTTO for the stack. If you think otherwise, please > >>> explain why. > >> > >> Marek, I've provided you with three generic examples of active memory > >> blocks that are relevant while U-Boot is allocating from and also > >> filling that LMB. Please follow those cases and explain to us why they > >> aren't active - or at least prove why they are specific the k3 (for > >> which I found no traces). > >> > >> And stop following the TLB topic for now. That was only my first guess. > >> The actual crash I'm seeing on my board come from plain code > >> overwriting. It could have been TLB as well. It could also have been the > >> stack. All those become unprotected via your reservation removal. > > > > Jan, one thing I didn't see before is, are you also using > > include/configs/ti_armv7_common.h in the end, like the K3 reference > > platforms, and if not are you setting bootm_size in your environment? I > > have one more idea on why this fails on your board but not Marek's. > > Thanks. > > We are including that header but we didn't use DEFAULT_LINUX_BOOT_ENV, > in fact. That left bootm_size undefined. Can you explain the impact? I suspect the answer here is that Marek does not see this problem because on R-Car bootm_size is set to 0x10000000 and so no relocation of the device tree / kernel / initrd happens to overwrite the running U-Boot and blow everything up. If you don't revert this, and do set bootm_size does everything work? Marek, if you unset bootm_size, do you see failure? Thanks! -- Tom