All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
@ 2015-11-11 20:23 Fabio Estevam
  2015-11-11 20:26 ` Simon Glass
  2015-11-11 20:33 ` Albert ARIBAUD
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2015-11-11 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

From: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>

Commit 5ba534d247d418 ("arm: Switch 32-bit ARM to using generic global_data
setup") causes malloc() to fail in SPL.

The reason is that the GD_MALLOC_BASE is not passed anymore.

Restore the code that passes malloc base so that we can have
malloc working in SPL code again.

Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
---
 arch/arm/lib/crt0.S | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S b/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S
index 80548eb..d620126 100644
--- a/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S
+++ b/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S
@@ -87,6 +87,10 @@ ENTRY(_main)
 	mov	sp, r0
 
 	mov	r0, #0
+#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN)
+	sub	sp, sp, #CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
+	str	sp, [r9, #GD_MALLOC_BASE]
+#endif
 	bl	board_init_f
 
 #if ! defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)
-- 
1.9.1

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 20:23 [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address Fabio Estevam
@ 2015-11-11 20:26 ` Simon Glass
  2015-11-11 20:41   ` Fabio Estevam
  2015-11-11 20:33 ` Albert ARIBAUD
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2015-11-11 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Fabio,

On 11 November 2015 at 13:23, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
>
> Commit 5ba534d247d418 ("arm: Switch 32-bit ARM to using generic global_data
> setup") causes malloc() to fail in SPL.
>
> The reason is that the GD_MALLOC_BASE is not passed anymore.
>
> Restore the code that passes malloc base so that we can have
> malloc working in SPL code again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/lib/crt0.S | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S b/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S
> index 80548eb..d620126 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S
> +++ b/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S
> @@ -87,6 +87,10 @@ ENTRY(_main)
>         mov     sp, r0
>
>         mov     r0, #0
> +#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN)
> +       sub     sp, sp, #CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
> +       str     sp, [r9, #GD_MALLOC_BASE]
> +#endif
>         bl      board_init_f
>
>  #if ! defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)
> --
> 1.9.1
>

Thanks for digging into this. But this should be set up in board_init_f_mem():

#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
   (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
   top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
   gd->malloc_base = top;
#endif

Is it possible that the #ifdef logic is wrong for your board?

Regardds,
Simon

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 20:23 [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address Fabio Estevam
  2015-11-11 20:26 ` Simon Glass
@ 2015-11-11 20:33 ` Albert ARIBAUD
  2015-11-11 20:49   ` Fabio Estevam
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Albert ARIBAUD @ 2015-11-11 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hello Fabio,

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:23:17 -0200, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
wrote:
> From: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> 
> Commit 5ba534d247d418 ("arm: Switch 32-bit ARM to using generic global_data
> setup") causes malloc() to fail in SPL.
> 
> The reason is that the GD_MALLOC_BASE is not passed anymore.

This is the explanation of the SPL fail, but not the /cause/ of it.
IOW, why is GD_MALLOC_BASE not passed any more, and what function or
routine is it not passed any more to?

> Restore the code that passes malloc base so that we can have
> malloc working in SPL code again.
> 
> [...]

> +#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN)
> +	sub	sp, sp, #CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
> +	str	sp, [r9, #GD_MALLOC_BASE]
> +#endif

NAK, as this only papers over the actual issue. Board_init_f_mem should
have set the malloc base in GD. Therefore, rather than doing it again
later, we must determine why it was not properly done earlier.11111

Can you give me the toolchain version, board name and commit ID that I
could use to reproduce the *faulty* build and check the generated code?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 20:26 ` Simon Glass
@ 2015-11-11 20:41   ` Fabio Estevam
  2015-11-11 21:00     ` Fabio Estevam
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2015-11-11 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Simon,

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:

> Thanks for digging into this. But this should be set up in board_init_f_mem():
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
>    (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
>    top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
>    gd->malloc_base = top;
> #endif
>
> Is it possible that the #ifdef logic is wrong for your board?

Good point. Looks like this is the problem indeed.

I have manually removed the #ifdef logic just for testing:

--- a/common/init/board_init.c
+++ b/common/init/board_init.c
@@ -50,11 +50,8 @@ ulong board_init_f_mem(ulong top)
 #endif
        arch_setup_gd(gd_ptr);

-#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
-       (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
        top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
        gd->malloc_base = top;
-#endif

        return top;
 }

,and then malloc() works fine in SPL.

Doing a make mx6sabresd_spl_defconfig I get:
CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F=y

For SPL_BUILD I get in menuconfig:

 Symbol: SPL_BUILD [=SPL_BUILD]
 Type  : unknown

and CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START does not exist.

Regards,

Fabio Estevam

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 20:33 ` Albert ARIBAUD
@ 2015-11-11 20:49   ` Fabio Estevam
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2015-11-11 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Albert,

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Albert ARIBAUD
<albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:

>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN)
>> +     sub     sp, sp, #CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
>> +     str     sp, [r9, #GD_MALLOC_BASE]
>> +#endif
>
> NAK, as this only papers over the actual issue. Board_init_f_mem should
> have set the malloc base in GD. Therefore, rather than doing it again
> later, we must determine why it was not properly done earlier.11111
>
> Can you give me the toolchain version, board name and commit ID that I
> could use to reproduce the *faulty* build and check the generated code?

Sure, I am testing top of head U-boot (cad049907). Target is
mx6sabresd_spl_defconfig.

Toolchain is: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-12ubuntu1) 4.7.3

In order to reproduce the malloc failure, please apply this patch
against mainline:

--- a/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
+++ b/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
 #include "../common/pfuze.h"
 #include <asm/arch/mx6-ddr.h>
 #include <usb.h>
+#include <malloc.h>

 DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;

@@ -833,6 +834,8 @@ static void spl_dram_init(void)

 void board_init_f(ulong dummy)
 {
+    void __iomem *ptr;
+
     /* setup AIPS and disable watchdog */
     arch_cpu_init();

@@ -848,6 +851,12 @@ void board_init_f(ulong dummy)
     /* UART clocks enabled and gd valid - init serial console */
     preloader_console_init();

+    spl_init();
+
+    ptr = malloc(64);
+    if (!ptr)
+        puts("******* malloc returned NULL\n");
+
     /* DDR initialization */
     spl_dram_init();

Also, as I just explained to Simon if I remove the ifdefery like this:

--- a/common/init/board_init.c
+++ b/common/init/board_init.c
@@ -50,11 +50,8 @@ ulong board_init_f_mem(ulong top)
 #endif
        arch_setup_gd(gd_ptr);

-#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
-       (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
        top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
        gd->malloc_base = top;
-#endif

        return top;
 }

Then malloc() works fine in SPL.

So it seems I need to find a way to make CONFIG_SPL_BUILD=n or
CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START=n.

Thanks,

Fabio Estevam

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 20:41   ` Fabio Estevam
@ 2015-11-11 21:00     ` Fabio Estevam
  2015-11-11 21:08       ` Simon Glass
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2015-11-11 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Simon and Albert,

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for digging into this. But this should be set up in board_init_f_mem():
>>
>> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
>>    (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
>>    top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
>>    gd->malloc_base = top;
>> #endif
>>
>> Is it possible that the #ifdef logic is wrong for your board?
>
> Good point. Looks like this is the problem indeed.
>
> I have manually removed the #ifdef logic just for testing:
>
> --- a/common/init/board_init.c
> +++ b/common/init/board_init.c
> @@ -50,11 +50,8 @@ ulong board_init_f_mem(ulong top)
>  #endif
>         arch_setup_gd(gd_ptr);
>
> -#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
> -       (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
>         top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
>         gd->malloc_base = top;
> -#endif
>
>         return top;
>  }
>
> ,and then malloc() works fine in SPL.

If I change the logic like this then malloc() works:

--- a/common/init/board_init.c
+++ b/common/init/board_init.c
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ ulong board_init_f_mem(ulong top)
        arch_setup_gd(gd_ptr);

 #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
-       (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
+       (defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
        top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
        gd->malloc_base = top;
 #endif


Shouldn't we test for defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) instead of
!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)?

Thanks

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 21:00     ` Fabio Estevam
@ 2015-11-11 21:08       ` Simon Glass
  2015-11-11 21:24         ` Fabio Estevam
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2015-11-11 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Fabio,

On 11 November 2015 at 14:00, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon and Albert,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for digging into this. But this should be set up in board_init_f_mem():
>>>
>>> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
>>>    (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
>>>    top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
>>>    gd->malloc_base = top;
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> Is it possible that the #ifdef logic is wrong for your board?
>>
>> Good point. Looks like this is the problem indeed.
>>
>> I have manually removed the #ifdef logic just for testing:
>>
>> --- a/common/init/board_init.c
>> +++ b/common/init/board_init.c
>> @@ -50,11 +50,8 @@ ulong board_init_f_mem(ulong top)
>>  #endif
>>         arch_setup_gd(gd_ptr);
>>
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
>> -       (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
>>         top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
>>         gd->malloc_base = top;
>> -#endif
>>
>>         return top;
>>  }
>>
>> ,and then malloc() works fine in SPL.
>
> If I change the logic like this then malloc() works:
>
> --- a/common/init/board_init.c
> +++ b/common/init/board_init.c
> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ ulong board_init_f_mem(ulong top)
>         arch_setup_gd(gd_ptr);
>
>  #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) && \
> -       (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
> +       (defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START))
>         top -= CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN;
>         gd->malloc_base = top;
>  #endif
>
>
> Shouldn't we test for defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) instead of
> !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)?

That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we plan
to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set up a
little later (in spl_init()). But we should not need both - either we
use simple malloc() or full malloc().

But for your board I see:

$ grep CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE b/mx6sabresd_spl/u-boot.cfg
#define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE 0x3200000

So you will not be able to use simple malloc(). I'd suggest calling
spl_init() from board_init_f() if you need malloc() there. But it
presumably needs to be done after you have SDRAM up. So perhaps
consider removing some things from board_init_f() and put them in
spl_board init()?

Regards,
Simon

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 21:08       ` Simon Glass
@ 2015-11-11 21:24         ` Fabio Estevam
  2015-11-11 21:49           ` Simon Glass
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2015-11-11 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Simon,

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:

> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we plan
> to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set up a
> little later (in spl_init()). But we should not need both - either we
> use simple malloc() or full malloc().
>
> But for your board I see:
>
> $ grep CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE b/mx6sabresd_spl/u-boot.cfg
> #define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE 0x3200000
>
> So you will not be able to use simple malloc(). I'd suggest calling
> spl_init() from board_init_f() if you need malloc() there. But it

Yes, I do call spl_init() from board_init_f() prior to calling
malloc() and this has been working fine prior to 5ba534d247d418.

> presumably needs to be done after you have SDRAM up. So perhaps

The trick here is that I need malloc to work prior to have SDRAM configured.

On cgtqmx6eval we need to read SPI NOR to determine what kind of DDR
we will need to configure.

Otavio has sent the SPL support for cgtqmx6eval, but it has not
reached U-boot mainline yet.

I am reproducing the problem on a mx6sabresd_spl target with the
simple example code I sent previously.

Regards,

Fabio Estevam

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 21:24         ` Fabio Estevam
@ 2015-11-11 21:49           ` Simon Glass
  2015-11-12  6:57             ` Albert ARIBAUD
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2015-11-11 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Fabio,

On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we plan
>> to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set up a
>> little later (in spl_init()). But we should not need both - either we
>> use simple malloc() or full malloc().
>>
>> But for your board I see:
>>
>> $ grep CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE b/mx6sabresd_spl/u-boot.cfg
>> #define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE 0x3200000
>>
>> So you will not be able to use simple malloc(). I'd suggest calling
>> spl_init() from board_init_f() if you need malloc() there. But it
>
> Yes, I do call spl_init() from board_init_f() prior to calling
> malloc() and this has been working fine prior to 5ba534d247d418.
>
>> presumably needs to be done after you have SDRAM up. So perhaps
>
> The trick here is that I need malloc to work prior to have SDRAM configured.
>
> On cgtqmx6eval we need to read SPI NOR to determine what kind of DDR
> we will need to configure.
>
> Otavio has sent the SPL support for cgtqmx6eval, but it has not
> reached U-boot mainline yet.
>
> I am reproducing the problem on a mx6sabresd_spl target with the
> simple example code I sent previously.

I see. That's not a use case I have seen before.

I'd suggest changing the #ifdef to always set up early malloc() if
CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F is set. There will of course be a new malloc()
once spi_init() is called, but that does not matter.

In your patch, please be careful to add some docs to the README on
this point (the early malloc() is only there to permit DRAM init,
etc.). It could get quite confusing...

Regards,
Simon

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-11 21:49           ` Simon Glass
@ 2015-11-12  6:57             ` Albert ARIBAUD
  2015-11-12 12:48               ` Fabio Estevam
  2015-11-12 15:59               ` Simon Glass
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Albert ARIBAUD @ 2015-11-12  6:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hello Simon,

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
> 
> On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we
> >> plan to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set
> >> up a little later (in spl_init()). But we should not need both -
> >> either we use simple malloc() or full malloc().
> >>
> >> But for your board I see:
> >>
> >> $ grep CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE b/mx6sabresd_spl/u-boot.cfg
> >> #define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE 0x3200000
> >>
> >> So you will not be able to use simple malloc(). I'd suggest calling
> >> spl_init() from board_init_f() if you need malloc() there. But it
> >
> > Yes, I do call spl_init() from board_init_f() prior to calling
> > malloc() and this has been working fine prior to 5ba534d247d418.
> >
> >> presumably needs to be done after you have SDRAM up. So perhaps
> >
> > The trick here is that I need malloc to work prior to have SDRAM
> > configured.
> >
> > On cgtqmx6eval we need to read SPI NOR to determine what kind of DDR
> > we will need to configure.
> >
> > Otavio has sent the SPL support for cgtqmx6eval, but it has not
> > reached U-boot mainline yet.
> >
> > I am reproducing the problem on a mx6sabresd_spl target with the
> > simple example code I sent previously.
> 
> I see. That's not a use case I have seen before.
> 
> I'd suggest changing the #ifdef to always set up early malloc() if
> CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F is set. There will of course be a new malloc()
> once spi_init() is called, but that does not matter.
> 
> In your patch, please be careful to add some docs to the README on
> this point (the early malloc() is only there to permit DRAM init,
> etc.). It could get quite confusing...

I'm not sure all details are clear to me so let me chime in on this.

IIUC, what Fabio needs is a working C runtime including malloc, based on
some IRAM rather than SDRAM.

This means there will be two phases where malloc can be used, the usual
one after SDRAM init, and a new one before SDRAM init.

Of course, the amount of memory reserved for the malloc arena cannot
be the same in IRAM as it will be in SDRAM, meaning that the routine
which reserves the arena must handle both cases, by detecting whether
it is running before or after SDRAM init and choosing the right malloc
size macro, or by just bein passed that info from the code responsible
for maintaining the C runtime environment (arch/arm/lib/crt0.C in the
ARM case) -- via the 'chunk_id' method I described earlier in
https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg191898.html

There is a *VERY* *BIG* *PROBLEM* to the whole idea of
malloc-before-SDRAM:

We could manage to transfer the pre-SDRAM-init maloc arena content to
the post-SDRAM-init malloc arena, thus preserving all pre- SDRAM-init
mallocs() across the stack switch.

*BUT*: all (variable-stored) pointers to pre-SDRAM-malloc'ed space will
become dangling pointers, because we have no easy way of telling where
these pointers are and relocating them.

This means that the mallocs() done before SDRAM init are lost and that
al pointers to them /will/ become dangling, including any copies and
derivatives of these; all code which depend these pointers and their
will have to handle the situation, which will prove *quite* complex or,
to be blunter, will prove not actually done, and will prove so through
weird bugs creeping up that we'll take some time to relate to malloc
issues, and to fix.

Of course, we could just decide that any malloc done before SDRAM init
is lost and that user code should deal with it. But I fear it will do so
just as badly as it would handle the "maloc transfer" alternative I just
described. Plus, if the malloc'ed data contains hardware module state
or any non-recoverable-again information, then we *cannot* just drop
it. 

Now, there is a systemic solution: that all code which stores a
malloc-arena-based pointer value in memory call a system-provided
function which, if running pre-SDRAM-init, would record the location of
the pointer in a list; upon C environment switch from pre- to
post-SDRAM contexts, the list would be run through and each pointer
would be 'relocated' from the old to the new maloc arena. Post-init,
the functon would not do any recording. That causes a slight
performance hit on mallocs, but I don't think it'll affect boot time
that much.

Only code which has to run before SDRAM init would have to use the
function.

The benefit of this approach is that maloc'ed space would remain
malloc'ed after SDRAM init and declared pointers to it would remain
valid. Code which has to malloc before SDRAM init would not have to
re-malloc or fix anything, or even realize the stack and malloc arena
have moved, as long as it has declared its malloc-related pointer(s).

Of course the list would be limited. But seeing as we'd be running in a
tight context and only to get SDRAM running, the list would not extend
much.

I imagine a scheme where the list is kept in the malloc arena. The
malloc space itself would still grow 'down' from the stack top while
the pointer list would grow 'up' from the stack 'bottom' limit.

I could whip up an RFC patch (with ARM support, to be extended to other
platforms as my recent experience showed I'm not that good at NIOS2 for
instance) if people are interested.

> Regards,
> Simon

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-12  6:57             ` Albert ARIBAUD
@ 2015-11-12 12:48               ` Fabio Estevam
  2015-11-12 15:59               ` Simon Glass
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Fabio Estevam @ 2015-11-12 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Albert,

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
<albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:

> I could whip up an RFC patch (with ARM support, to be extended to other
> platforms as my recent experience showed I'm not that good at NIOS2 for
> instance) if people are interested.

I would be glad to test such patch, thanks.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-12  6:57             ` Albert ARIBAUD
  2015-11-12 12:48               ` Fabio Estevam
@ 2015-11-12 15:59               ` Simon Glass
  2015-11-12 16:13                 ` Albert ARIBAUD
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2015-11-12 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Albert,

On 11 November 2015 at 23:57, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>> Hi Fabio,
>>
>> On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Simon,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we
>> >> plan to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set
>> >> up a little later (in spl_init()). But we should not need both -
>> >> either we use simple malloc() or full malloc().
>> >>
>> >> But for your board I see:
>> >>
>> >> $ grep CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE b/mx6sabresd_spl/u-boot.cfg
>> >> #define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE 0x3200000
>> >>
>> >> So you will not be able to use simple malloc(). I'd suggest calling
>> >> spl_init() from board_init_f() if you need malloc() there. But it
>> >
>> > Yes, I do call spl_init() from board_init_f() prior to calling
>> > malloc() and this has been working fine prior to 5ba534d247d418.
>> >
>> >> presumably needs to be done after you have SDRAM up. So perhaps
>> >
>> > The trick here is that I need malloc to work prior to have SDRAM
>> > configured.
>> >
>> > On cgtqmx6eval we need to read SPI NOR to determine what kind of DDR
>> > we will need to configure.
>> >
>> > Otavio has sent the SPL support for cgtqmx6eval, but it has not
>> > reached U-boot mainline yet.
>> >
>> > I am reproducing the problem on a mx6sabresd_spl target with the
>> > simple example code I sent previously.
>>
>> I see. That's not a use case I have seen before.
>>
>> I'd suggest changing the #ifdef to always set up early malloc() if
>> CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F is set. There will of course be a new malloc()
>> once spi_init() is called, but that does not matter.
>>
>> In your patch, please be careful to add some docs to the README on
>> this point (the early malloc() is only there to permit DRAM init,
>> etc.). It could get quite confusing...
>
> I'm not sure all details are clear to me so let me chime in on this.
>
> IIUC, what Fabio needs is a working C runtime including malloc, based on
> some IRAM rather than SDRAM.
>
> This means there will be two phases where malloc can be used, the usual
> one after SDRAM init, and a new one before SDRAM init.
>
> Of course, the amount of memory reserved for the malloc arena cannot
> be the same in IRAM as it will be in SDRAM, meaning that the routine
> which reserves the arena must handle both cases, by detecting whether
> it is running before or after SDRAM init and choosing the right malloc
> size macro, or by just bein passed that info from the code responsible
> for maintaining the C runtime environment (arch/arm/lib/crt0.C in the
> ARM case) -- via the 'chunk_id' method I described earlier in
> https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg191898.html
>
> There is a *VERY* *BIG* *PROBLEM* to the whole idea of
> malloc-before-SDRAM:
>
> We could manage to transfer the pre-SDRAM-init maloc arena content to
> the post-SDRAM-init malloc arena, thus preserving all pre- SDRAM-init
> mallocs() across the stack switch.
>
> *BUT*: all (variable-stored) pointers to pre-SDRAM-malloc'ed space will
> become dangling pointers, because we have no easy way of telling where
> these pointers are and relocating them.
>
> This means that the mallocs() done before SDRAM init are lost and that
> al pointers to them /will/ become dangling, including any copies and
> derivatives of these; all code which depend these pointers and their
> will have to handle the situation, which will prove *quite* complex or,
> to be blunter, will prove not actually done, and will prove so through
> weird bugs creeping up that we'll take some time to relate to malloc
> issues, and to fix.
>
> Of course, we could just decide that any malloc done before SDRAM init
> is lost and that user code should deal with it. But I fear it will do so
> just as badly as it would handle the "maloc transfer" alternative I just
> described. Plus, if the malloc'ed data contains hardware module state
> or any non-recoverable-again information, then we *cannot* just drop
> it.
>
> Now, there is a systemic solution: that all code which stores a
> malloc-arena-based pointer value in memory call a system-provided
> function which, if running pre-SDRAM-init, would record the location of
> the pointer in a list; upon C environment switch from pre- to
> post-SDRAM contexts, the list would be run through and each pointer
> would be 'relocated' from the old to the new maloc arena. Post-init,
> the functon would not do any recording. That causes a slight
> performance hit on mallocs, but I don't think it'll affect boot time
> that much.
>
> Only code which has to run before SDRAM init would have to use the
> function.
>
> The benefit of this approach is that maloc'ed space would remain
> malloc'ed after SDRAM init and declared pointers to it would remain
> valid. Code which has to malloc before SDRAM init would not have to
> re-malloc or fix anything, or even realize the stack and malloc arena
> have moved, as long as it has declared its malloc-related pointer(s).
>
> Of course the list would be limited. But seeing as we'd be running in a
> tight context and only to get SDRAM running, the list would not extend
> much.
>
> I imagine a scheme where the list is kept in the malloc arena. The
> malloc space itself would still grow 'down' from the stack top while
> the pointer list would grow 'up' from the stack 'bottom' limit.
>
> I could whip up an RFC patch (with ARM support, to be extended to other
> platforms as my recent experience showed I'm not that good at NIOS2 for
> instance) if people are interested.

I'm really not sure that this problem is worth solving.

We have quite a hard boundary between board_init_f() and
board_init_r() in U-Boot proper. For some platforms the memory
available in the former is not available in the latter. People
understand (I think) that pre-relocation stuff goes away and exists
only to assist with bringing up the new environment.

Driver model is started up in board_init_f() but then the whole thing
is thrown away and started again in board_init_r(). So if someone kept
a device pointer around for later (e.g. in global_data) it would not
work (Don't Do That!). This approach has not caused any reported
problems yet.

While you can copy memory and fix up pointers returned by malloc(),
pointers to rodata and other things may still exist. It would be
tedious or error-prone to relocate these.

My preference would be to keep it simple, and just make it clear that
board_init_f() may have an early malloc(), but even if it does it goes
away in board_init_r(). That rule can apply to SPL just as easily as
U-Boot proper.

Regards,
Simon

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-12 15:59               ` Simon Glass
@ 2015-11-12 16:13                 ` Albert ARIBAUD
  2015-11-14  2:12                   ` Simon Glass
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Albert ARIBAUD @ 2015-11-12 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hello Simon,

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:59:54 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
wrote:
> Hi Albert,
> 
> On 11 November 2015 at 23:57, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:
> > Hello Simon,
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Fabio,
> >>
> >> On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Simon,
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we
> >> >> plan to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set
> >> >> up a little later (in spl_init()). But we should not need both -
> >> >> either we use simple malloc() or full malloc().
> >> >>
> >> >> But for your board I see:
> >> >>
> >> >> $ grep CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE b/mx6sabresd_spl/u-boot.cfg
> >> >> #define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE 0x3200000
> >> >>
> >> >> So you will not be able to use simple malloc(). I'd suggest calling
> >> >> spl_init() from board_init_f() if you need malloc() there. But it
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I do call spl_init() from board_init_f() prior to calling
> >> > malloc() and this has been working fine prior to 5ba534d247d418.
> >> >
> >> >> presumably needs to be done after you have SDRAM up. So perhaps
> >> >
> >> > The trick here is that I need malloc to work prior to have SDRAM
> >> > configured.
> >> >
> >> > On cgtqmx6eval we need to read SPI NOR to determine what kind of DDR
> >> > we will need to configure.
> >> >
> >> > Otavio has sent the SPL support for cgtqmx6eval, but it has not
> >> > reached U-boot mainline yet.
> >> >
> >> > I am reproducing the problem on a mx6sabresd_spl target with the
> >> > simple example code I sent previously.
> >>
> >> I see. That's not a use case I have seen before.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest changing the #ifdef to always set up early malloc() if
> >> CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F is set. There will of course be a new malloc()
> >> once spi_init() is called, but that does not matter.
> >>
> >> In your patch, please be careful to add some docs to the README on
> >> this point (the early malloc() is only there to permit DRAM init,
> >> etc.). It could get quite confusing...
> >
> > I'm not sure all details are clear to me so let me chime in on this.
> >
> > IIUC, what Fabio needs is a working C runtime including malloc, based on
> > some IRAM rather than SDRAM.
> >
> > This means there will be two phases where malloc can be used, the usual
> > one after SDRAM init, and a new one before SDRAM init.
> >
> > Of course, the amount of memory reserved for the malloc arena cannot
> > be the same in IRAM as it will be in SDRAM, meaning that the routine
> > which reserves the arena must handle both cases, by detecting whether
> > it is running before or after SDRAM init and choosing the right malloc
> > size macro, or by just bein passed that info from the code responsible
> > for maintaining the C runtime environment (arch/arm/lib/crt0.C in the
> > ARM case) -- via the 'chunk_id' method I described earlier in
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg191898.html
> >
> > There is a *VERY* *BIG* *PROBLEM* to the whole idea of
> > malloc-before-SDRAM:
> >
> > We could manage to transfer the pre-SDRAM-init maloc arena content to
> > the post-SDRAM-init malloc arena, thus preserving all pre- SDRAM-init
> > mallocs() across the stack switch.
> >
> > *BUT*: all (variable-stored) pointers to pre-SDRAM-malloc'ed space will
> > become dangling pointers, because we have no easy way of telling where
> > these pointers are and relocating them.
> >
> > This means that the mallocs() done before SDRAM init are lost and that
> > al pointers to them /will/ become dangling, including any copies and
> > derivatives of these; all code which depend these pointers and their
> > will have to handle the situation, which will prove *quite* complex or,
> > to be blunter, will prove not actually done, and will prove so through
> > weird bugs creeping up that we'll take some time to relate to malloc
> > issues, and to fix.
> >
> > Of course, we could just decide that any malloc done before SDRAM init
> > is lost and that user code should deal with it. But I fear it will do so
> > just as badly as it would handle the "maloc transfer" alternative I just
> > described. Plus, if the malloc'ed data contains hardware module state
> > or any non-recoverable-again information, then we *cannot* just drop
> > it.
> >
> > Now, there is a systemic solution: that all code which stores a
> > malloc-arena-based pointer value in memory call a system-provided
> > function which, if running pre-SDRAM-init, would record the location of
> > the pointer in a list; upon C environment switch from pre- to
> > post-SDRAM contexts, the list would be run through and each pointer
> > would be 'relocated' from the old to the new maloc arena. Post-init,
> > the functon would not do any recording. That causes a slight
> > performance hit on mallocs, but I don't think it'll affect boot time
> > that much.
> >
> > Only code which has to run before SDRAM init would have to use the
> > function.
> >
> > The benefit of this approach is that maloc'ed space would remain
> > malloc'ed after SDRAM init and declared pointers to it would remain
> > valid. Code which has to malloc before SDRAM init would not have to
> > re-malloc or fix anything, or even realize the stack and malloc arena
> > have moved, as long as it has declared its malloc-related pointer(s).
> >
> > Of course the list would be limited. But seeing as we'd be running in a
> > tight context and only to get SDRAM running, the list would not extend
> > much.
> >
> > I imagine a scheme where the list is kept in the malloc arena. The
> > malloc space itself would still grow 'down' from the stack top while
> > the pointer list would grow 'up' from the stack 'bottom' limit.
> >
> > I could whip up an RFC patch (with ARM support, to be extended to other
> > platforms as my recent experience showed I'm not that good at NIOS2 for
> > instance) if people are interested.
> 
> I'm really not sure that this problem is worth solving.
> 
> We have quite a hard boundary between board_init_f() and
> board_init_r() in U-Boot proper. For some platforms the memory
> available in the former is not available in the latter. People
> understand (I think) that pre-relocation stuff goes away and exists
> only to assist with bringing up the new environment.

(I fear that half the question is what people understand, and then the
other half is what they think they understand and have not -- here,
since malloc and DM is available before and after SDRAM init, people
might think it is just the *same* DM across the transition -- or,
eventually, want it to be.)

> Driver model is started up in board_init_f() but then the whole thing
> is thrown away and started again in board_init_r(). So if someone kept
> a device pointer around for later (e.g. in global_data) it would not
> work (Don't Do That!). This approach has not caused any reported
> problems yet.

Isn't it a potential problem that the driver model is started (and
therefore some devices intialized) and then thrown away? Some devices
might not like (or even permit) being initialized twice, or that may
cause glitches, for instance.

> While you can copy memory and fix up pointers returned by malloc(),
> pointers to rodata and other things may still exist. It would be
> tedious or error-prone to relocate these.

rodata does not move during SDRAM init (and the stack swap we're
considering here). It moves during U-Boot relocation though; and yes,
pointers to ro data pre-relocation will become stale after relocation,
but this has been the case even way before DM existed.

> My preference would be to keep it simple, and just make it clear that
> board_init_f() may have an early malloc(), but even if it does it goes
> away in board_init_r(). That rule can apply to SPL just as easily as
> U-Boot proper.

IMO, keeping it simple does not play well with making DM and malloc
available pre-SDRAM init :) --- but don't miscontrue my meaning: I'm
fine with DM and malloc pre-SDRAM on platforms which have enough IRAM /
SRAM / lockable cache / whatever for it. My point is just that sooner
or later, someone will start wanting not to do again after SDRAM init
what they've already done before it, because it avoids double HW init
issues, becaue it saves time, etc. And that's going to be way sooner
than later, IMO.

> Regards,
> Simon

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-12 16:13                 ` Albert ARIBAUD
@ 2015-11-14  2:12                   ` Simon Glass
  2015-11-14 15:23                     ` Albert ARIBAUD
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2015-11-14  2:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hi Albert,

On 12 November 2015 at 09:13, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:59:54 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>> Hi Albert,
>>
>> On 11 November 2015 at 23:57, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:
>> > Hello Simon,
>> >
>> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi Fabio,
>> >>
>> >> On 11 November 2015 at 14:24, Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Simon,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> That test is intended to avoid setting up simple malloc() if we
>> >> >> plan to use full malloc() in SPL. Of course, full malloc() is set
>> >> >> up a little later (in spl_init()). But we should not need both -
>> >> >> either we use simple malloc() or full malloc().
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But for your board I see:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> $ grep CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE b/mx6sabresd_spl/u-boot.cfg
>> >> >> #define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE 0x3200000
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you will not be able to use simple malloc(). I'd suggest calling
>> >> >> spl_init() from board_init_f() if you need malloc() there. But it
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, I do call spl_init() from board_init_f() prior to calling
>> >> > malloc() and this has been working fine prior to 5ba534d247d418.
>> >> >
>> >> >> presumably needs to be done after you have SDRAM up. So perhaps
>> >> >
>> >> > The trick here is that I need malloc to work prior to have SDRAM
>> >> > configured.
>> >> >
>> >> > On cgtqmx6eval we need to read SPI NOR to determine what kind of DDR
>> >> > we will need to configure.
>> >> >
>> >> > Otavio has sent the SPL support for cgtqmx6eval, but it has not
>> >> > reached U-boot mainline yet.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am reproducing the problem on a mx6sabresd_spl target with the
>> >> > simple example code I sent previously.
>> >>
>> >> I see. That's not a use case I have seen before.
>> >>
>> >> I'd suggest changing the #ifdef to always set up early malloc() if
>> >> CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F is set. There will of course be a new malloc()
>> >> once spi_init() is called, but that does not matter.
>> >>
>> >> In your patch, please be careful to add some docs to the README on
>> >> this point (the early malloc() is only there to permit DRAM init,
>> >> etc.). It could get quite confusing...
>> >
>> > I'm not sure all details are clear to me so let me chime in on this.
>> >
>> > IIUC, what Fabio needs is a working C runtime including malloc, based on
>> > some IRAM rather than SDRAM.
>> >
>> > This means there will be two phases where malloc can be used, the usual
>> > one after SDRAM init, and a new one before SDRAM init.
>> >
>> > Of course, the amount of memory reserved for the malloc arena cannot
>> > be the same in IRAM as it will be in SDRAM, meaning that the routine
>> > which reserves the arena must handle both cases, by detecting whether
>> > it is running before or after SDRAM init and choosing the right malloc
>> > size macro, or by just bein passed that info from the code responsible
>> > for maintaining the C runtime environment (arch/arm/lib/crt0.C in the
>> > ARM case) -- via the 'chunk_id' method I described earlier in
>> > https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg191898.html
>> >
>> > There is a *VERY* *BIG* *PROBLEM* to the whole idea of
>> > malloc-before-SDRAM:
>> >
>> > We could manage to transfer the pre-SDRAM-init maloc arena content to
>> > the post-SDRAM-init malloc arena, thus preserving all pre- SDRAM-init
>> > mallocs() across the stack switch.
>> >
>> > *BUT*: all (variable-stored) pointers to pre-SDRAM-malloc'ed space will
>> > become dangling pointers, because we have no easy way of telling where
>> > these pointers are and relocating them.
>> >
>> > This means that the mallocs() done before SDRAM init are lost and that
>> > al pointers to them /will/ become dangling, including any copies and
>> > derivatives of these; all code which depend these pointers and their
>> > will have to handle the situation, which will prove *quite* complex or,
>> > to be blunter, will prove not actually done, and will prove so through
>> > weird bugs creeping up that we'll take some time to relate to malloc
>> > issues, and to fix.
>> >
>> > Of course, we could just decide that any malloc done before SDRAM init
>> > is lost and that user code should deal with it. But I fear it will do so
>> > just as badly as it would handle the "maloc transfer" alternative I just
>> > described. Plus, if the malloc'ed data contains hardware module state
>> > or any non-recoverable-again information, then we *cannot* just drop
>> > it.
>> >
>> > Now, there is a systemic solution: that all code which stores a
>> > malloc-arena-based pointer value in memory call a system-provided
>> > function which, if running pre-SDRAM-init, would record the location of
>> > the pointer in a list; upon C environment switch from pre- to
>> > post-SDRAM contexts, the list would be run through and each pointer
>> > would be 'relocated' from the old to the new maloc arena. Post-init,
>> > the functon would not do any recording. That causes a slight
>> > performance hit on mallocs, but I don't think it'll affect boot time
>> > that much.
>> >
>> > Only code which has to run before SDRAM init would have to use the
>> > function.
>> >
>> > The benefit of this approach is that maloc'ed space would remain
>> > malloc'ed after SDRAM init and declared pointers to it would remain
>> > valid. Code which has to malloc before SDRAM init would not have to
>> > re-malloc or fix anything, or even realize the stack and malloc arena
>> > have moved, as long as it has declared its malloc-related pointer(s).
>> >
>> > Of course the list would be limited. But seeing as we'd be running in a
>> > tight context and only to get SDRAM running, the list would not extend
>> > much.
>> >
>> > I imagine a scheme where the list is kept in the malloc arena. The
>> > malloc space itself would still grow 'down' from the stack top while
>> > the pointer list would grow 'up' from the stack 'bottom' limit.
>> >
>> > I could whip up an RFC patch (with ARM support, to be extended to other
>> > platforms as my recent experience showed I'm not that good at NIOS2 for
>> > instance) if people are interested.
>>
>> I'm really not sure that this problem is worth solving.
>>
>> We have quite a hard boundary between board_init_f() and
>> board_init_r() in U-Boot proper. For some platforms the memory
>> available in the former is not available in the latter. People
>> understand (I think) that pre-relocation stuff goes away and exists
>> only to assist with bringing up the new environment.
>
> (I fear that half the question is what people understand, and then the
> other half is what they think they understand and have not -- here,
> since malloc and DM is available before and after SDRAM init, people
> might think it is just the *same* DM across the transition -- or,
> eventually, want it to be.)

Possibly, but we can add documentation in the code to correct this view.

>
>> Driver model is started up in board_init_f() but then the whole thing
>> is thrown away and started again in board_init_r(). So if someone kept
>> a device pointer around for later (e.g. in global_data) it would not
>> work (Don't Do That!). This approach has not caused any reported
>> problems yet.
>
> Isn't it a potential problem that the driver model is started (and
> therefore some devices intialized) and then thrown away? Some devices
> might not like (or even permit) being initialized twice, or that may
> cause glitches, for instance.

Yes. This is called out in the driver model README for example. It
hasn't caused any problems yet though.

>
>> While you can copy memory and fix up pointers returned by malloc(),
>> pointers to rodata and other things may still exist. It would be
>> tedious or error-prone to relocate these.
>
> rodata does not move during SDRAM init (and the stack swap we're
> considering here). It moves during U-Boot relocation though; and yes,
> pointers to ro data pre-relocation will become stale after relocation,
> but this has been the case even way before DM existed.

Conceptually I am trying to make board_init_f() and board_init_r()
mean the same thing in SPL and U-Boot proper. That is, the SDRAM init
happens in board_init_f() and there is an early malloc() available
then. Once you get to board_init_r() you have a new malloc() which
sits in SDRAM. For both SPL and U-Boot proper I don't think the
boundary should be when SDRAM is inited, but when board_init_r() is
called.

>
>> My preference would be to keep it simple, and just make it clear that
>> board_init_f() may have an early malloc(), but even if it does it goes
>> away in board_init_r(). That rule can apply to SPL just as easily as
>> U-Boot proper.
>
> IMO, keeping it simple does not play well with making DM and malloc
> available pre-SDRAM init :) --- but don't miscontrue my meaning: I'm
> fine with DM and malloc pre-SDRAM on platforms which have enough IRAM /
> SRAM / lockable cache / whatever for it. My point is just that sooner
> or later, someone will start wanting not to do again after SDRAM init
> what they've already done before it, because it avoids double HW init
> issues, becaue it saves time, etc. And that's going to be way sooner
> than later, IMO.

Yes that is quite possibility true. I'm happy to review any patches if
it helps. My comment about it possibly not being worthwhile solving is
just that. Things have a way of changing, so what looks unnecessary
now might look essential tomorrow. In a way, the simple malloc() fits
into that category.

Regards,
Simon

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address
  2015-11-14  2:12                   ` Simon Glass
@ 2015-11-14 15:23                     ` Albert ARIBAUD
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Albert ARIBAUD @ 2015-11-14 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hello Simon,

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:12:13 -0700, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
wrote:

> > IMO, keeping it simple does not play well with making DM and malloc
> > available pre-SDRAM init :) --- but don't miscontrue my meaning: I'm
> > fine with DM and malloc pre-SDRAM on platforms which have enough IRAM /
> > SRAM / lockable cache / whatever for it. My point is just that sooner
> > or later, someone will start wanting not to do again after SDRAM init
> > what they've already done before it, because it avoids double HW init
> > issues, becaue it saves time, etc. And that's going to be way sooner
> > than later, IMO.
> 
> Yes that is quite possibility true. I'm happy to review any patches if
> it helps. My comment about it possibly not being worthwhile solving is
> just that. Things have a way of changing, so what looks unnecessary
> now might look essential tomorrow. In a way, the simple malloc() fits
> into that category.

And so evolve the uses of DM, of the DT, etc.

Alright, so I will post my RFC and read your comments with much
interest!

> Regards,
> Simon

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2015-11-14 15:23 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-11-11 20:23 [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: crt0: Pass malloc base address Fabio Estevam
2015-11-11 20:26 ` Simon Glass
2015-11-11 20:41   ` Fabio Estevam
2015-11-11 21:00     ` Fabio Estevam
2015-11-11 21:08       ` Simon Glass
2015-11-11 21:24         ` Fabio Estevam
2015-11-11 21:49           ` Simon Glass
2015-11-12  6:57             ` Albert ARIBAUD
2015-11-12 12:48               ` Fabio Estevam
2015-11-12 15:59               ` Simon Glass
2015-11-12 16:13                 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2015-11-14  2:12                   ` Simon Glass
2015-11-14 15:23                     ` Albert ARIBAUD
2015-11-11 20:33 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2015-11-11 20:49   ` Fabio Estevam

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.