From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDA8C46467 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 17:46:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAFE85254; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 18:46:17 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=konsulko.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=konsulko.com header.i=@konsulko.com header.b="qWrme9pM"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 7179285215; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 18:46:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C92485254 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 18:46:11 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=konsulko.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=trini@konsulko.com Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id jr11so4701396qtb.7 for ; Sat, 07 Jan 2023 09:46:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=konsulko.com; s=google; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RuTAoVdWswL8aUfADb4VwW5XXTBAhvfmM4M6iA0G+ok=; b=qWrme9pMp9Fl7whqU1f+2Y2cOZw4x75TC0xQC+9p2RGQZWTcgyj4IIhYLj8a+hKLo/ wPzMB0Sl/u4OK+ku9WiyN9tQyWCQQ0rDEs/mlxSUb3oTWIj9NmELr9rvkJ6usjrF3JsU CF4Vm7s82EwnS6iyGsu1BVt6sFx9Uc4qMb/QE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=RuTAoVdWswL8aUfADb4VwW5XXTBAhvfmM4M6iA0G+ok=; b=w4PjEPcRC9lcWkolwNYY6Uto3XN81vh9jQwU1/rMn+dAWHJMQgDr2XSkH3NxuEYbbK de2LzS80wqlgBE0bbnIHriPRNdL7ffoGFWIIjeN06fWMl9d+EqIZsCuibrZ2WY3zFxRu tSn2jP6PNf6ceyqgkl70wxKn7TbNybfSj3+4PicWTua7RhixePvXtoteyG03IXubUq/+ tTPVy/FGDdldkTnSx3NpvsHIASDk6NORedIINq37DALsl1IuW1E8lD8IJx6KgY+9V3za 6XVdpKokbu1LXsDj/zv/sWfpHjqKKJnYdhqdCjBEelIi1hTgbBYLgi+/w6MHxxGPYDTv 8G6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krQnzn/2I10o0xrFPtq0taMRdpnVrip8XGZZ1CuCJHBCsPscYe9 8v8NRnrrtahL1XPwVBZNiu1dZcwbVgY8+9IJL1Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXsAS5g675mmwFccwUbRLK1gNyd9DGD7s4dy5ZdhX0r7TMFL6hsxaWzZZXU8ibUmLCjTyetEvw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:754d:0:b0:3a9:8b1a:fe22 with SMTP id b13-20020ac8754d000000b003a98b1afe22mr78867007qtr.4.1673113570330; Sat, 07 Jan 2023 09:46:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from bill-the-cat (2603-6081-7b00-6400-64a1-0c30-ebd7-ca7b.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:6081:7b00:6400:64a1:c30:ebd7:ca7b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f9-20020ac80689000000b00343057845f7sm2169949qth.20.2023.01.07.09.46.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 07 Jan 2023 09:46:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 12:46:07 -0500 From: Tom Rini To: Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de, Marek Vasut , Patrick Delaunay Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "common/memsize.c: Fix get_effective_memsize() to check for overflow" Message-ID: <20230107174607.GQ3787616@bill-the-cat> References: <20230106202256.bvjwcfsjbhzsfgrh@pali> <20230106211408.GH3787616@bill-the-cat> <20230106214541.GI3787616@bill-the-cat> <20230106220930.pmdjzmdwyx53ouwv@pali> <20230106225156.GJ3787616@bill-the-cat> <20230107162645.2ygz5rk2tlzmiogw@pali> <20230107173212.GN3787616@bill-the-cat> <20230107173858.yq4frmhkm7ychkp5@pali> <20230107174000.GP3787616@bill-the-cat> <20230107174440.cvn7v7ylitsqkwsx@pali> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="d+0ad1fTh64ULgyF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230107174440.cvn7v7ylitsqkwsx@pali> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.6 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean --d+0ad1fTh64ULgyF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 06:44:40PM +0100, Pali Roh=E1r wrote: > On Saturday 07 January 2023 12:40:00 Tom Rini wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 06:38:58PM +0100, Pali Roh=E1r wrote: > > > On Saturday 07 January 2023 12:32:12 Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 05:26:45PM +0100, Pali Roh=E1r wrote: > > > > > On Friday 06 January 2023 17:51:56 Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 11:09:30PM +0100, Pali Roh=E1r wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday 06 January 2023 16:45:41 Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 04:14:08PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 09:22:56PM +0100, Pali Roh=E1r wr= ote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday 06 January 2023 12:25:24 Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 05:45:43PM +0100, Pali Roh=E1= r wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday 06 January 2023 10:51:43 Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This reverts commit 777aaaa706bcfe08c284aed06886d= b7d482af3f8. > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > The changes to this generic function, which is in= tended to help with > > > > > > > > > > > > > 32bit platforms with large amounts of memory has = unintended side effects > > > > > > > > > > > > > (which in turn lead to boot failures) on other pl= atforms which were > > > > > > > > > > > > > previously functional. > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned previously, unfortunately this revert = breaks 32-bit u-boot > > > > > > > > > > > > on 36-bit mpc85xx boards with 32-bit e500v2 cores a= nd 4GB DDR module. > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > Which platforms currently have broken u-boot withou= t this revert? The > > > > > > > > > > > > only one which was reported is stm32mp but for it t= here different > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround patch waiting in the queue. > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > Are you able to test on one of these PowerPC platform= s currently? As > > > > > > > > > > > the stm32 problem shows, not everything is getting te= sted frequently > > > > > > > > > > > enough, so how many other cases are lurking out there= =2E And, I think > > > > > > > > > > > overall issue is that the overflow check-and-change y= ou introduce here > > > > > > > > > > > should just be in the CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED=3D=3Dtrue= case. As that's the > > > > > > > > > > > case you're dealing with, yes? > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > I was planning to do big retest again after all powerpc= patches are > > > > > > > > > > reviewed and merged... > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > Yes, but can you test one of them now, to see if my idea = works? > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Ok, I will try to look at during the weekend. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > OK, good, thanks. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, if the issue here is with ram_size and its redu= ction was needed > > > > > > > > > > for mpc85xx (at the time of introduction of that patch)= , what about > > > > > > > > > > putting mpc85xx ifdef around ram_size reduction? For ar= m boards it would > > > > > > > > > > have same behavior as revert of that commit and for mpc= 85xx it would be > > > > > > > > > > no change. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > This is what I mean: > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MPC85xx > > > > > > > if (gd->ram_base + ram_size < gd->ram_base) > > > > > > > ram_size =3D ...; > > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > I agree that this code needs to be revisited, together = with ram_top > > > > > > > > > > issue and also code which fills DDR banks. Because real= ly mapped memory > > > > > > > > > > for u-boot and real size of DDR are two different thing= s here. > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > The issue here is that we see two now (given Fabio's remi= nder about > > > > > > > > > another thread I had forgotten) of unintended consequence= s, on 32bit > > > > > > > > > platforms trying to normally have 2GB of memory, which do= es not require > > > > > > > > > special treatment. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Running git grep get_effective_memsize and git grep 'gd->ram_= top' shows > > > > > > > the root of this issue: Different platforms, boards and commo= n code use > > > > > > > these things differently. This needs to be "fixed" =3D unifie= d in whole > > > > > > > codebase. We need a function which returns mappable memory fo= r u-boot > > > > > > > (intptr_t type is enough) and another function (or structure = or > > > > > > > whatever) which says total size of RAM as u64 type (to ensure= that it > > > > > > > would work also for 4GB SODIMM modules on pure 32-bit platfor= ms). And > > > > > > > then each place in u-boot code has to be modified to use the = correct > > > > > > > function. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Second issue is then gd->ram_top. Either say 4GB for 32-bit r= am_top type > > > > > > > is not supported or say that zero value is special and repres= ents 4GB. > > > > > > > And also every place in u-boot code needs to be adjusted by t= his > > > > > > > decision / code. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Fixing both issues make easily break lot of boards (if done i= mproperly) > > > > > > > as it touches whole u-boot code base. So not easy task. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > What I'm leaning towards right now even, is that since it's= hard to test > > > > > > > > the non-36bit platforms that do set CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED, = to see if > > > > > > > > their behavior also changed here, the 36bit platforms shoul= d just be > > > > > > > > overriding get_effective_memsize. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > There are (at least) 3 situation: > > > > > > > 1) if RAM is mapped to the end of physical address space (pos= sibly just > > > > > > > small e.g. 1GB) > > > > > > > 2) if platform is >32-bit but running in 32-bit mode (so phys= ical > > > > > > > address is u64 because we do not have e.g. int36_t; but vo= id* is > > > > > > > 32-bit) > > > > > > > 3) if RAM is exactly 4GB and u-boot is 32-bit > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > And every one has different edge cases and cause different pr= oblems. > > > > > > > Now, as I pointed above that every platform / board is using > > > > > > > get_effective_memsize() differently, plus we have CONFIG_MAX_= MEM_MAPPED > > > > > > > option, it means that number of test matrix is really huge. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > It looks like that ARM issues are caused by the fact that RAM= is mapped > > > > > > > to the end of the physical address space (so it does not matt= er how big > > > > > > > or small it is). And powerpc issue is 4GB of RAM together wit= h running > > > > > > > in 32-bit mode. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Anyway, has U-Boot support for 32-bit x86 CPUs with PAE suppo= rt? If yes, > > > > > > > then I bet that there can be other edge cases when e.g. 8GB o= f DDR is > > > > > > > connected. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Yes, it's very much a mess, so for this release I'd like to ret= urn to > > > > > > either: > > > > > > - Status quo of v2022.10 (revert this patch) > > > > > > - Change only CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED being set behavior (should = keep > > > > > > PowerPC 36bit working, may have unexpected impact on other pl= atforms, > > > > > > still, but very few at least). > > > > >=20 > > > > > Yea, it is a mess. I'm looking at the CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED again= and it > > > > > is for different situation. CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED says maximal ma= pped > > > > > memory. For mpc85xx it is by default set to 2GB for a very long t= ime. > > > > > And if base physical address od the RAM is at 2GB or higher then = it also > > > > > hits this 4GB limit. So CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED does not help there= =2E.. > > > >=20 > > > > Right, it's a mess. So, to try and end up with the least number of > > > > broken platforms for the coming release, would you rather a full re= vert, > > > > or just moving your changes under CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED being set, = which > > > > I believe you're saying is the case for 36bit PowerPC ? > > >=20 > > > CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED is by default set for all powerpc boards > > > (see arch/powerpc/include/asm/config.h) and also for some ARM plat. > > >=20 > > > As I suggested above, rather move ram_size modification under > > > CONFIG_MPC85xx which is set only for powerpc mpc85xx platform which > > > I tested. > > >=20 > > > CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED option is not too strict as CONFIG_MPC85xx. > >=20 > > Right, so which option for the release on Monday do you prefer at this > > point? We should indeed sort this mess out, for v2023.04. >=20 > Just moving/hiding those changes under mpc85xx ifdef. So ARM platforms > would be unaffected and mpc85xx platform would not break again. > Something like this (with explanation comments): >=20 > diff --git a/common/memsize.c b/common/memsize.c > index 3c80ad2c8346..54a6416717a3 100644 > --- a/common/memsize.c > +++ b/common/memsize.c > @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ phys_size_t __weak get_effective_memsize(void) > { > phys_size_t ram_size =3D gd->ram_size; > =20 > +#ifdef CONFIG_MPC85xx > /* > * Check for overflow and limit ram size to some representable value. > * It is required that ram_base + ram_size must be representable by > @@ -105,6 +106,7 @@ phys_size_t __weak get_effective_memsize(void) > */ > if (gd->ram_base + ram_size < gd->ram_base) > ram_size =3D ((phys_size_t)~0xfffULL) - gd->ram_base; > +#endif > =20 > #ifndef CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED > return ram_size; >=20 That works for me, can you please post it as a formal patch and I'll apply it? --=20 Tom --d+0ad1fTh64ULgyF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGzBAABCgAdFiEEGjx/cOCPqxcHgJu/FHw5/5Y0tywFAmO5r98ACgkQFHw5/5Y0 tyxvhQwAl50tTlK3I4UDEzJfcXbYpZ4GXvB/ctkXuF0IA7Nqu++aRLT0j35d2CVC v3yn0MFNxtDpxWSTeSv9aRS/aRaL4tZ7CpHPzgoC6T4yAET/X9SjRXIZBkcduaHL 0WhiAPerXZv/5IJyIr0Uee3oaJKmm3hvB3mF+xV6Ydoi0BudeqdyOAeNH9S5Yue9 DcpXyk9+ntpgoYxj2B+wRt0Q4obiuCnz/ZQCUsvtssj2/ar5OpWXkMnOsW2Ov9eJ 4Z3f6NsDw2tncohojA/wFkP4x+hr51nwsXTGO5OxaWgPLL4GrTLQvaiAAP+ABX+A 9tkIu+tp/LefqFODKa5EVuFU9MxjModYk9pcXmN4Y0x1+wJ4cYK7+/dH0l5zTUOY P+CwT9liL+7Dq7sXxPvONPdDSHe7YgWQpnOxcT/pqEy5OZPlnm99T2rq/ePgoU/J 1+0jLjzWA/6dFH223twTnkhtWHeKvWDvmU7/asm7lq+hELjHGXcL1K0jULkHoK5/ wayhXXDL =zg6p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --d+0ad1fTh64ULgyF--