[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Alexander Holler]

Hello,

to give the topic a better meaning and to summarize what I think is 
currently happening along with some "pictures" for a better understanding:

We are starting with code (c) and data (d) somewhere in the memory:

----------
|cd      |
----------

The relocation in start.S should achieve this:

----------
|      cd|
----------

That means code and data should be moved upwards. What
currently is happening is the following:

----------
| d    c |
----------

The code is moved upwards, but that code still uses the data at d.
This results another problem: Some parts in the code are assuming that d 
is cleared (set to zero in start.S). But what start.S does it to clear
the new location (z in the picture below).

----------
| d    cz|
----------

Because the code (c) still uses the data (bss) in d and not in z, some 
hard to find errors might occur because the used data isn't set to zero 
as required.

I have almost no knowledge about how gcc and the binutils are handling 
relocation, therfore I can't help much further here. What I think is 
part of the problem, is that -fPIC was removed. Using -pie in LDFLAGS 
might be used to get relocatable code, but the data will not be 
relocated. And I would wonder if that is possible without instructing 
the compiler to build stuff for relocation (-fPIC).


I hope that brings some light into the problem.

Regards,

Alexander

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 30/10/2010 15:08, Alexander Holler a ?crit :
> Hello,
>
> to give the topic a better meaning and to summarize what I think is
> currently happening along with some "pictures" for a better understanding:

You may be right, but for now this is not necessarily what really 
happens, so the subjet is still somewhat of a misnomer.

> We are starting with code (c) and data (d) somewhere in the memory:
>
> ----------
> |cd      |
> ----------
>
> The relocation in start.S should achieve this:
>
> ----------
> |      cd|
> ----------
>
> That means code and data should be moved upwards. What
> currently is happening is the following:
>
> ----------
> | d    c |
> ----------
>
> The code is moved upwards, but that code still uses the data at d.
> This results another problem: Some parts in the code are assuming that d
> is cleared (set to zero in start.S). But what start.S does it to clear
> the new location (z in the picture below).

Wait a minute. No parts of the code assume BSS is *cleared*, or at least 
no pat of the should *should ever* assume that. BSS is not "zeroed 
data", it is "uninitialized data".

Which leads to another question: you found an issue according to which 
values put in nand_chip[] were not read back correctly later on, with 
both the writing and reading occurring after relocation.

But -- stop me if I'm wrong -- there is no reason that only one of the 
reading or writing used the "right" address and one used the "wrong" 
address, right? Both use the same address. Even if BSS does not end up 
where it should, it would still be at the same address for all code, so 
that does not explain the issue you're seeing.

> ----------
> | d    cz|
> ----------
>
> Because the code (c) still uses the data (bss) in d and not in z, some
> hard to find errors might occur because the used data isn't set to zero
> as required.

BSS is not *required* to be zero. It is zeroed out as a courtesy, but 
code is expected not to depend on BSS being zeroed. Besides, in your 
case, the fact that it is zeroed out does not matter since you're 
(correctly) trying to read a BSS variable that is assumed to have been 
properly filled in earlier.

> I have almost no knowledge about how gcc and the binutils are handling
> relocation, therfore I can't help much further here. What I think is
> part of the problem, is that -fPIC was removed. Using -pie in LDFLAGS
> might be used to get relocatable code, but the data will not be
> relocated. And I would wonder if that is possible without instructing
> the compiler to build stuff for relocation (-fPIC).
>
> I hope that brings some light into the problem.

Again, when -fPIC was replace with -pie, it was because it actually 
relocated much better that GOT relocation, including on NAND devices IIRC.

Could people with ARM NAND-based boards on the list test their own board 
with Alexander's DEBUG and printf() added, and see what this gives on 
their board?

> Regards,
>
> Alexander

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Alexander Holler]

Hello,

Am 30.10.2010 15:36, schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:

>> The code is moved upwards, but that code still uses the data at d.
>> This results another problem: Some parts in the code are assuming that d
>> is cleared (set to zero in start.S). But what start.S does it to clear
>> the new location (z in the picture below).
>
> Wait a minute. No parts of the code assume BSS is *cleared*, or at least
> no pat of the should *should ever* assume that. BSS is not "zeroed
> data", it is "uninitialized data".

Thats true for normal C, but I assume that is not true for u-boot.

This reminds me on some problems I've had long long time ago, with 
switching from debug to optimized code using vc++. I don't know if it is 
still true (>10a ago), but in those days, vc++ had preset all not 
initialized data with zero when optimization was turned off.

If the code in u-boot would not assume that bss is zero, I don't 
understand why clear_bss in start.S exists.

Regards,

Alexander

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 30/10/2010 15:45, Alexander Holler a ?crit :
> Hello,
>
> Am 30.10.2010 15:36, schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
>
>>> The code is moved upwards, but that code still uses the data at d.
>>> This results another problem: Some parts in the code are assuming that d
>>> is cleared (set to zero in start.S). But what start.S does it to clear
>>> the new location (z in the picture below).
>>
>> Wait a minute. No parts of the code assume BSS is *cleared*, or at least
>> no pat of the should *should ever* assume that. BSS is not "zeroed
>> data", it is "uninitialized data".
>
> Thats true for normal C, but I assume that is not true for u-boot.

You mean the rule is not respected for u-boot? then you should point out 
(or better yet, submit a patch to fix) parts of code which assume BSS is 
zero. Besides... U-boot *is* normal C (apart from the part before 
relocation where constraints prevent the use of any variable other than GD).

> This reminds me on some problems I've had long long time ago, with
> switching from debug to optimized code using vc++. I don't know if it is
> still true (>10a ago), but in those days, vc++ had preset all not
> initialized data with zero when optimization was turned off.
>
> If the code in u-boot would not assume that bss is zero, I don't
> understand why clear_bss in start.S exists.

As I said, out of courtesy.

Still, BSS zeroing does not seem to relate to what you witness. You're 
not reading a variable that you think should be zero; you're writing 
then reading a BSS variable, and find that you read something different 
from what you read.

BTW, can you add printfs() with the nand init functions to see where it 
writes? As it uses a pointer, if this pointer is not passed correctly 
for some reason, we'll be able to see.

> Regards,
>
> Alexander

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Alexander Holler]

Am 30.10.2010 15:57, schrieb Albert ARIBAUD:
> Le 30/10/2010 15:45, Alexander Holler a ?crit :

>> If the code in u-boot would not assume that bss is zero, I don't
>> understand why clear_bss in start.S exists.
>
> As I said, out of courtesy.
>
> Still, BSS zeroing does not seem to relate to what you witness. You're
> not reading a variable that you think should be zero; you're writing
> then reading a BSS variable, and find that you read something different
> from what you read.

I'm not doing anything. Thats just what I've cloncluded reading existing 
code. First, clear_bss exists, Second, code in u-boot seems to assume 
that bss is cleared.

I've run into this problem because the following check in 
nand_set_defaults() in nand_base.c:
-------------
        /* check, if a user supplied command function given */ 
 

         if (chip->cmdfunc == NULL) 
 

                 chip->cmdfunc = nand_command; 
 

-------------

But the board-specific function which presets those values doesn't touch 
chip->cmdfunc (kirkwood_nand.c):

------------------
   int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) 
 

{ 
 

         nand->options = NAND_COPYBACK | NAND_CACHEPRG | 
NAND_NO_PADDING; 

         nand->ecc.mode = NAND_ECC_SOFT; 
 

         nand->cmd_ctrl = kw_nand_hwcontrol; 
 

         nand->chip_delay = 30; 
 

         nand->select_chip = kw_nand_select_chip; 
 

         return 0; 
 

}
------------------

And nothing else touches those nand_chip structures before they are used.

Regards,

Alexander

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Albert ARIBAUD,

In message <4CCC242C.8070303@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> You mean the rule is not respected for u-boot? then you should point out
> (or better yet, submit a patch to fix) parts of code which assume BSS is

It's a requirement of a standard C execution environment. BSS must
_always_ be cleared.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
                                                      - Rich Kulawiec

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 30/10/2010 16:39, Wolfgang Denk a ?crit :
> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
>
> In message<4CCC242C.8070303@free.fr>  you wrote:
>>
>> You mean the rule is not respected for u-boot? then you should point out
>> (or better yet, submit a patch to fix) parts of code which assume BSS is
>
> It's a requirement of a standard C execution environment. BSS must
> _always_ be cleared.

Just re-checked the C99 specs, and yes, all static scope vars must be 
initialized, so I stand corrected as for BSS initialization. I still 
think, though, that one should not count on a BSS-allocated variable to 
be zero at program start, and if one wants a variable to be zero, one 
must initialize it explicitly.

Anyway, as I said, the nand_chip[] issue is not, I believe, related to 
initializing BSS, as the writing and reading both occur after setting up 
the C environment for running from RAM.

> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Albert ARIBAUD,

In message <4CCC4161.8000807@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> Just re-checked the C99 specs, and yes, all static scope vars must be 
> initialized, so I stand corrected as for BSS initialization. I still 
> think, though, that one should not count on a BSS-allocated variable to 
> be zero at program start, and if one wants a variable to be zero, one 
> must initialize it explicitly.

The C standard guarantees that.  And U-Boot guarantees that, after
relocation, we have a standard C execution environment, i. e. a zeroed
BSS.

> Anyway, as I said, the nand_chip[] issue is not, I believe, related to 
> initializing BSS, as the writing and reading both occur after setting up 
> the C environment for running from RAM.

Agreed.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
I mean, I . . . think to understand you, I just don't know  what  you
are saying ...                        - Terry Pratchett, _Soul Music_

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Alexander Holler,

In message <4CCC218E.706@ahsoftware.de> you wrote:
>
> > Wait a minute. No parts of the code assume BSS is *cleared*, or at least
> > no pat of the should *should ever* assume that. BSS is not "zeroed
> > data", it is "uninitialized data".
> 
> Thats true for normal C, but I assume that is not true for u-boot.

It is true for U-Boot, too. After relocation, we provide a standard C
execution environment, which includes a zeroes BSS.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
And the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
And the address of the memory makes your floppy disk abort,
Then the socket packet pocket has an error to report! - Ken Burchill?

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Albert ARIBAUD,

In message <4CCC1F6C.7040603@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> Wait a minute. No parts of the code assume BSS is *cleared*, or at least
> no pat of the should *should ever* assume that. BSS is not "zeroed
> data", it is "uninitialized data".

BSS _is_ zeroed data. This is a very basic assumption of the C
runtime.

> BSS is not *required* to be zero. It is zeroed out as a courtesy, but >

No, you are wrong here.

Zeroing of the BSS is a mandatory requirement.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.
- Kahlil Gibran

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Alexander Holler]

Hello,

Am 30.10.2010 16:36, schrieb Wolfgang Denk:
> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
>
> In message<4CCC1F6C.7040603@free.fr>  you wrote:
>>
>> Wait a minute. No parts of the code assume BSS is *cleared*, or at least
>> no pat of the should *should ever* assume that. BSS is not "zeroed
>> data", it is "uninitialized data".
>
> BSS _is_ zeroed data. This is a very basic assumption of the C
> runtime.
>
>> BSS is not *required* to be zero. It is zeroed out as a courtesy, but>
>
> No, you are wrong here.
>
> Zeroing of the BSS is a mandatory requirement.


Beeing curious, I've looked up that part in the C99 standard. Just to 
refresh our memories:

-------------------------------------
6.7.8

10

If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized 
explicitly, its value is
indeterminate. If an object that has static storage duration is not 
initialized explicitly,
then:
? if it has pointer type, it is initialized to a null pointer;
? if it has arithmetic type, it is initialized to (positive or unsigned) 
zero;
? if it is an aggregate, every member is initialized (recursively) 
according to these rules;
? if it is a union, the ?rst named member is initialized (recursively) 
according to these
rules.
-------------------------------------

Regards,

Alexander

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Alexander Holler,

In message <4CCD4C1C.2050603@ahsoftware.de> you wrote:
> 
> > Zeroing of the BSS is a mandatory requirement.
> 
> 
> Beeing curious, I've looked up that part in the C99 standard. Just to=20
> refresh our memories:
> 
> -------------------------------------
> 6.7.8
> 
> 10
>
> If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized 
> explicitly, its value is

Wrong section.  We are not talking about variables with "automatic
storage" (which means they are allocated on the stack), but about
_static_ variables.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Men will always be men -- no matter where they are.
	-- Harry Mudd, "Mudd's Women", stardate 1329.8

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 31/10/2010 12:58, Wolfgang Denk a ?crit :
> Dear Alexander Holler,
>
> In message<4CCD4C1C.2050603@ahsoftware.de>  you wrote:
>>
>>> Zeroing of the BSS is a mandatory requirement.
>>
>>
>> Beeing curious, I've looked up that part in the C99 standard. Just to=20
>> refresh our memories:
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>> 6.7.8
>>
>> 10
>>
>> If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized
>> explicitly, its value is
>
> Wrong section.  We are not talking about variables with "automatic
> storage" (which means they are allocated on the stack), but about
> _static_ variables.

Actually I think this is the right section (and the only one to deal 
with initialization IIUC); is has indeed this one sentence about 
automatic objects, but then the following is about static objects:

"[...] If an object that has static storage duration is not initialized 
explicitly, then: [...]"

> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Alexander Holler]

Hello,

Am 31.10.2010 12:58, schrieb Wolfgang Denk:
>
>> If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized
>> explicitly, its value is
>>      
> Wrong section.  We are not talking about variables with "automatic
> storage" (which means they are allocated on the stack), but about
> _static_ variables.
>
>    
You should have read just one sentence further: ;)
------

If an object that has static storage duration is not
initialized explicitly,
then:

...
------

Regards,

Alexander

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Albert ARIBAUD,

In message <4CCC1F6C.7040603@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> Could people with ARM NAND-based boards on the list test their own board >
> with Alexander's DEBUG and printf() added, and see what this gives on >
> their board?

Here the results from tx25:

U-Boot 2010.12-rc1-00026-g0c0892b-dirty (Oct 30 2010 - 16:55:43)

U-Boot code: 81200000 -> 812291A0  BSS: -> 812322A0
CPU:   Freescale i.MX25 at 399 MHz

monitor len: 000322A0
ramsize: 02000000
TLB table at: 81ff0000
Top of RAM usable for U-Boot at: 81ff0000
Reserving 200k for U-Boot at: 81fbd000
Reserving 1024k for malloc() at: 81ebd000
Reserving 24 Bytes for Board Info at: 81ebcfe8
Reserving 92 Bytes for Global Data at: 81ebcf8c
New Stack Pointer is: 81ebcf88
RAM Configuration:
Bank #0: 80000000 32 MiB
relocation Offset is: 00dbd000
monitor flash len: 000291A0
Now running in RAM - U-Boot at: 81fbd000
NAND:  128 MiB
## nand_chip: 81fe91a0


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature
is to build better mice.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 30/10/2010 17:00, Wolfgang Denk a ?crit :

> U-Boot 2010.12-rc1-00026-g0c0892b-dirty (Oct 30 2010 - 16:55:43)

I assume this is the latest master, right?

> U-Boot code: 81200000 ->  812291A0  BSS: ->  812322A0

> relocation Offset is: 00dbd000

> Now running in RAM - U-Boot at: 81fbd000

> ## nand_chip: 81fe91a0

This is consistent. What commit exactly did you compile, and what 
toolchain did you use?

> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Albert ARIBAUD,

In message <4CCC5406.6050600@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> 
> > U-Boot 2010.12-rc1-00026-g0c0892b-dirty (Oct 30 2010 - 16:55:43)
> 
> I assume this is the latest master, right?
> 
> > U-Boot code: 81200000 ->  812291A0  BSS: ->  812322A0
> 
> > relocation Offset is: 00dbd000
> 
> > Now running in RAM - U-Boot at: 81fbd000
> 
> > ## nand_chip: 81fe91a0
> 
> This is consistent. What commit exactly did you compile, and what 
> toolchain did you use?

I used ELDK 4.2 in the arm-linux- setup,  and the commit is visible in
the version line above: it's 0c0892b (the "dirty" comes from adding
the DEBUG in board.c and the printf() in nand.c

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, half shut afterwards.
                                                 -- Benjamin Franklin

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Heiko Schocher]

Hello Wolfgang,

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
> 
> In message <4CCC1F6C.7040603@free.fr> you wrote:
>> Could people with ARM NAND-based boards on the list test their own board >
>> with Alexander's DEBUG and printf() added, and see what this gives on >
>> their board?
> 
> Here the results from tx25:

Thanks for doing this. I also made such a log for Alexander
on 27.10.2010 in u-boot%irc.freenode.org (couldn;t find this
in the history :-(  )  after we foun out, that on his board
nand_chip resist on the old address before relocation ...

and I said to him, that it works fine on this board,
and ... we came to the opinion, that it maybe is a
toolchain issue ... IIRC he uses gcc-4.5x ... and
he wanted to try ELDK-4.2 ...

> U-Boot 2010.12-rc1-00026-g0c0892b-dirty (Oct 30 2010 - 16:55:43)
> 
> U-Boot code: 81200000 -> 812291A0  BSS: -> 812322A0
> CPU:   Freescale i.MX25 at 399 MHz
> 
> monitor len: 000322A0
> ramsize: 02000000
> TLB table at: 81ff0000
> Top of RAM usable for U-Boot at: 81ff0000
> Reserving 200k for U-Boot at: 81fbd000
> Reserving 1024k for malloc() at: 81ebd000
> Reserving 24 Bytes for Board Info at: 81ebcfe8
> Reserving 92 Bytes for Global Data at: 81ebcf8c
> New Stack Pointer is: 81ebcf88
> RAM Configuration:
> Bank #0: 80000000 32 MiB
> relocation Offset is: 00dbd000
> monitor flash len: 000291A0
> Now running in RAM - U-Boot at: 81fbd000
> NAND:  128 MiB
> ## nand_chip: 81fe91a0

Yep, that look good, and I don;t think it is a code problem.

Alexander, did you tried (as you thought to do)
ELDK-4.2 with gcc-4.2.x ? Are you sure your toolchain works
correct with -pie?

bye,
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Darius Augulis]

Hi All,

I still have the same problem with my non main-line mini6410 board 
(arm1176). I based my board support on newest u-boot with cleaned 
relocation code:

U-Boot 2010.12-rc1-00028-ga1f6774 (Oct 30 2010 - 17:44:20) for MINI6410

U-Boot code: 57E00000 -> 57E20B58  BSS: -> 57E26218

CPU:     S3C6400 at 532MHz
          Fclk = 532MHz, Hclk = 133MHz, Pclk = 66MHz (SYNC Mode)
Board:   MINI6410
monitor len: 00026218
ramsize: 08000000
TLB table at: 57ff0000
Top of RAM usable for U-Boot at: 57ff0000
Reserving 152k for U-Boot at: 57fc9000
Reserving 1280k for malloc() at: 57e89000
Reserving 24 Bytes for Board Info at: 57e88fe8
Reserving 92 Bytes for Global Data at: 57e88f8c
New Stack Pointer is: 57e88f88
RAM Configuration:
Bank #0: 50000000 128 MiB
relocation Offset is: 001c9000
monitor flash len: 00020B58
Now running in RAM - U-Boot at: 57fc9000
Using default environment

Destroy Hash Table: 57e26100 table = (null)
Create Hash Table: N=67
INSERT: table 57e26100, filled 1/67 rv 57e89268 ==> name="bootdelay" 
value="3"
INSERT: table 57e26100, filled 2/67 rv 57e89274 ==> name="baudrate" 
value="115200"
INSERT: free(data = 57e89008)
INSERT: done
In:    serial
Out:   serial
Err:   serial
Net:   dm9000
### main_loop entered: bootdelay=3

### main_loop: bootcmd="<UNDEFINED>"
MINI6410 # help
Unknown command 'help' - try 'help'
MINI6410 #

It seems like cmd table somehow isn't relocated or is corrupted.
I tried to change TEXT_BASE, then stack size, then malloc size, but in 
all cases result is the same. I use non standard nand_spl yet, which is 
only 10 lines of code to copy two nand pages to TEXT_BASE. I don't know 
if gcc or binutils version could cause such problem. There are versions 
of my tools:

$ arm-linux-gcc --version
arm-linux-gcc (Buildroot 2010.11-git) 4.4.5

$ arm-linux-ld --version
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.20.1.20100303

Eric, do you still have the same problem of missing commands with your 
kirkwood board?

Darius.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 30/10/2010 17:15, Darius Augulis a ?crit :
> Hi All,
>
> I still have the same problem with my non main-line mini6410 board
> (arm1176). I based my board support on newest u-boot with cleaned
> relocation code:
>
> U-Boot 2010.12-rc1-00028-ga1f6774 (Oct 30 2010 - 17:44:20) for MINI6410
>
> U-Boot code: 57E00000 ->  57E20B58  BSS: ->  57E26218
>
> CPU:     S3C6400 at 532MHz
>            Fclk = 532MHz, Hclk = 133MHz, Pclk = 66MHz (SYNC Mode)
> Board:   MINI6410
> monitor len: 00026218
> ramsize: 08000000
> TLB table at: 57ff0000
> Top of RAM usable for U-Boot at: 57ff0000
> Reserving 152k for U-Boot at: 57fc9000
> Reserving 1280k for malloc() at: 57e89000
> Reserving 24 Bytes for Board Info at: 57e88fe8
> Reserving 92 Bytes for Global Data at: 57e88f8c
> New Stack Pointer is: 57e88f88
> RAM Configuration:
> Bank #0: 50000000 128 MiB
> relocation Offset is: 001c9000
> monitor flash len: 00020B58
> Now running in RAM - U-Boot at: 57fc9000
> Using default environment
>
> Destroy Hash Table: 57e26100 table = (null)
> Create Hash Table: N=67
> INSERT: table 57e26100, filled 1/67 rv 57e89268 ==>  name="bootdelay"
> value="3"
> INSERT: table 57e26100, filled 2/67 rv 57e89274 ==>  name="baudrate"
> value="115200"
> INSERT: free(data = 57e89008)
> INSERT: done
> In:    serial
> Out:   serial
> Err:   serial
> Net:   dm9000
> ### main_loop entered: bootdelay=3
>
> ### main_loop: bootcmd="<UNDEFINED>"
> MINI6410 # help
> Unknown command 'help' - try 'help'
> MINI6410 #
>
> It seems like cmd table somehow isn't relocated or is corrupted.
> I tried to change TEXT_BASE, then stack size, then malloc size, but in
> all cases result is the same. I use non standard nand_spl yet, which is
> only 10 lines of code to copy two nand pages to TEXT_BASE. I don't know
> if gcc or binutils version could cause such problem. There are versions
> of my tools:
>
> $ arm-linux-gcc --version
> arm-linux-gcc (Buildroot 2010.11-git) 4.4.5
>
> $ arm-linux-ld --version
> GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.20.1.20100303
>
> Eric, do you still have the same problem of missing commands with your
> kirkwood board?
>
> Darius.

This is not quite the same issue as Alexander has, right?

If your board has NAND support, can you try and reproduce his issue?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Alexander Holler]

Hello,

I've written a small patch to test if relocation is working (at least as 
I have understood as it should work).

The patch is here:

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2010-October/080798.html

This fials here with gcc 4.3.4 and 4.5.1 (and binutils 2.20.1). I 
currently have no other toolchain, so I can't test if that works with 
e.g. gcc 4.2.x.

The output I'm getting currently here (without DEBUG in board.c) is:

---------------------------------------------
Marvell>> g 0x700000
## Starting application at 0x00700000 ...


U-Boot 2010.12-rc1-00036-g527491f (Oct 30 2010 - 21:38:17)
Seagate-DockStar

SoC:   Kirkwood 88F6281_A0
DRAM:  128 MiB
(relocated) BSS is from 07fa8fa4 to 07fef0a0
&monitor_flash_len: 00759fc0
WARNING: relocation failed (&monitor_flash_len is outside reloctated BSS)!
NAND:  256 MiB
In:    serial
Out:   serial
Err:   serial
Net:   egiga0
88E1116 Initialized on egiga0
Hit any key to stop autoboot:  0
Unknown command 'run' - try 'help'
Unknown command 'usb' - try 'help'
Unknown command 'run' - try 'help'
Unknown command 'reset' - try 'help'
Marvell>>
---------------------------------------------

Regards,

Alexander

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Alexander Holler]

Hello,


I've just tested an u-boot build by Wolfgang Denx with the ELDK 4.2 
(using the HEAD of the current master with the same patches than I've used).

Thanks for that, Wolfgang.

This one works without any problems. So it seems to be proved, that it 
is a problem of the current relocation code as found in start.S in 
conjunction with a newer version of gcc.

Regards,

Alexander

Am 30.10.2010 22:03, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Hello,
>
> I've written a small patch to test if relocation is working (at least as
> I have understood as it should work).
>
> The patch is here:
>
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2010-October/080798.html
>
> This fials here with gcc 4.3.4 and 4.5.1 (and binutils 2.20.1). I
> currently have no other toolchain, so I can't test if that works with
> e.g. gcc 4.2.x.
>
> The output I'm getting currently here (without DEBUG in board.c) is:
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Marvell>>  g 0x700000
> ## Starting application at 0x00700000 ...
>
>
> U-Boot 2010.12-rc1-00036-g527491f (Oct 30 2010 - 21:38:17)
> Seagate-DockStar
>
> SoC:   Kirkwood 88F6281_A0
> DRAM:  128 MiB
> (relocated) BSS is from 07fa8fa4 to 07fef0a0
> &monitor_flash_len: 00759fc0
> WARNING: relocation failed (&monitor_flash_len is outside reloctated BSS)!
> NAND:  256 MiB
> In:    serial
> Out:   serial
> Err:   serial
> Net:   egiga0
> 88E1116 Initialized on egiga0
> Hit any key to stop autoboot:  0
> Unknown command 'run' - try 'help'
> Unknown command 'usb' - try 'help'
> Unknown command 'run' - try 'help'
> Unknown command 'reset' - try 'help'
> Marvell>>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Regards,
>
> Alexander
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Heiko Schocher]

Hello Alexander

Alexander Holler wrote:
> I've just tested an u-boot build by Wolfgang Denx with the ELDK 4.2
> (using the HEAD of the current master with the same patches than I've
> used).
> 
> Thanks for that, Wolfgang.
> 
> This one works without any problems. So it seems to be proved, that it

Great! (And as we thought on 27.10.2010 ...)

> is a problem of the current relocation code as found in start.S in
> conjunction with a newer version of gcc.

Yep, seems so ...

bye,
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[V, Aneesh]

Hello Heiko, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-
> bounces at lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Heiko Schocher
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 1:18 PM
> To: Alexander Holler
> Cc: Darius Augulis; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS
> 
> Hello Alexander
> 
> Alexander Holler wrote:
> > I've just tested an u-boot build by Wolfgang Denx with the ELDK
> 4.2
> > (using the HEAD of the current master with the same patches than
> I've
> > used).
> >
> > Thanks for that, Wolfgang.
> >
> > This one works without any problems. So it seems to be proved,
> that it
> 
> Great! (And as we thought on 27.10.2010 ...)
> 
> > is a problem of the current relocation code as found in start.S in
> > conjunction with a newer version of gcc.
> 
> Yep, seems so ...

I am also facing similar issues with booting OMAP4430 SDP(Cortex-A9) 
and did some debugging. 

I am using GCC 4.4.1. 

I found some strange issues with the code generated by the compiler. 

Looks like the following labels created in start.S do not work as 
intended. 
Please look at the header information and assembly listing generated
by objdump. 


*******************************************************************

Code: 
*****
_rel_dyn_start_ofs:
	.word __rel_dyn_start - _start
_rel_dyn_end_ofs:
	.word __rel_dyn_end - _start
_dynsym_start_ofs:
	.word __dynsym_start - _start


Assembly listing: 
*****************
80e8017c <_board_init_r_ofs>:
80e8017c:       00000748        .word   0x00000748

80e80180 <_rel_dyn_start_ofs>:
80e80180:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c

80e80184 <_rel_dyn_end_ofs>:
80e80184:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c

80e80188 <_dynsym_start_ofs>:
80e80188:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c


Header dump:
************
u-boot:     file format elf32-littlearm

Sections:
Idx Name          Size      VMA       LMA       File off  Algn
  0 .text         000187b4  80e80000  80e80000  00008000  2**5
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, CODE
  1 .rodata       00005fde  80e987b4  80e987b4  000207b4  2**2
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  2 .interp       00000011  80e9e792  80e9e792  00026792  2**0
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  3 .dynamic      00000080  80ea3500  80ea3500  0002b500  2**2
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
  4 .dynsym       00000100  80ea358c  80ea358c  0002b58c  2**2
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  5 .dynstr       000000c2  80e9e7a3  80e9e7a3  000267a3  2**0
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  6 .hash         00000054  80e9e868  80e9e868  00026868  2**2
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  7 .rel.dyn      00003c50  80e9e8bc  80e9e8bc  000268bc  2**2
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  8 .data         00000ff4  80ea250c  80ea250c  0002a50c  2**2
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
  9 .got.plt      0000000c  80ea3580  80ea3580  0002b580  2**2
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
 10 .u_boot_cmd   00000540  80ea368c  80ea368c  0002b68c  2**2
                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
 11 .bss          00031220  80ea3bd0  80ea3bd0  0002bbcc  2**3
                  ALLOC


So, there seems to be a problem in the way 'as' assembles the labels. 

I see the following 'warning' in the 'as' manual: 

Machines with a 32-bit address space, but that do less than 32-bit 
addressing, require the following special treatment. If the machine of 
interest to you does 32-bit addressing (or doesn't require it; see 
Chapter 9 [Machine Dependencies], page 75), you can ignore this
issue. In order to assemble compiler output into something that works, 
as occasionally does strange things to `.word' directives. Directives 
of the form `.word sym1-sym2' are often emitted by compilers as part of jump tables. 

Therefore, when as assembles a directive of the form 
`.word sym1-sym2', and the difference between sym1 and sym2 does not 
fit in 16 bits, as creates a secondary jump table, immediately before 
the next label. This secondary jump table is preceded by a short-jump to the first byte after the secondary table. This
short-jump prevents the flow of control from accidentally falling into 
the new table. Inside the table is a long-jump to sym2. The original 
`.word' contains sym1 minus the address of the long-jump to sym2.

If there were several occurrences of `.word sym1-sym2' before the 
secondary jump table, all of them are adjusted. If there was a `.word 
sym3-sym4', that also did not fit in sixteen bits, a long-jump to sym4 
is included in the secondary jump table, and the .word directives
are adjusted to contain sym3 minus the address of the long-jump to 
sym4; and so on, for as many entries in the original jump table as 
necessary. 

**********************************************************

Looks like part of the issue is due to these labels. 

However, there seems to be other problems. 
I noticed that the code is also not relocatable. It's making absolute
references to the address before relocation. 

This seems to be solved if I add -fPIE to the PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS. 

However, I couldn't solve the problem with the labels yet. I will let 
you know if I could make some progress. 

Br,
Aneesh

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[V, Aneesh]

Hi Heiko,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-
> bounces at lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of V, Aneesh
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:10 AM
> To: hs at denx.de; Alexander Holler
> Cc: Darius Augulis; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS
> 
> 
> Assembly listing:
> *****************
> 80e8017c <_board_init_r_ofs>:
> 80e8017c:       00000748        .word   0x00000748
> 
> 80e80180 <_rel_dyn_start_ofs>:
> 80e80180:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
> 
> 80e80184 <_rel_dyn_end_ofs>:
> 80e80184:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
> 
> 80e80188 <_dynsym_start_ofs>:
> 80e80188:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
> 

I don't know if this was clear in the previous mail. Please note that 
last three labels have same value. 

Best regards,
Aneesh

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 02/11/2010 06:58, V, Aneesh a ?crit :
> Hi Heiko,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-
>> bounces at lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of V, Aneesh
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:10 AM
>> To: hs at denx.de; Alexander Holler
>> Cc: Darius Augulis; u-boot at lists.denx.de
>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS
>>
>>
>> Assembly listing:
>> *****************
>> 80e8017c<_board_init_r_ofs>:
>> 80e8017c:       00000748        .word   0x00000748
>>
>> 80e80180<_rel_dyn_start_ofs>:
>> 80e80180:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
>>
>> 80e80184<_rel_dyn_end_ofs>:
>> 80e80184:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
>>
>> 80e80188<_dynsym_start_ofs>:
>> 80e80188:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
>>
>
> I don't know if this was clear in the previous mail. Please note that
> last three labels have same value.
>
> Best regards,
> Aneesh

Aneesh,

This has been seen on tx25 and analyzed over the last few days. The root 
cause was found to be a change in the .rel.dyn handling by the 
compilers. See if the fixes in

<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/88156>
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/88157>
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/88158>

can apply to your board; either the .lds fix as done in the first two 
patches, or the fix in the third one, or both.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[V, Aneesh]

Hi Albert, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud at free.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:02 PM
> To: V, Aneesh
> Cc: hs at denx.de; Alexander Holler; Darius Augulis; u-
> boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS
> 
> Le 02/11/2010 06:58, V, Aneesh a ?crit :
> > Hi Heiko,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-
> >> bounces at lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of V, Aneesh
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:10 AM
> >> To: hs at denx.de; Alexander Holler
> >> Cc: Darius Augulis; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS
> >>
> >>
> >> Assembly listing:
> >> *****************
> >> 80e8017c<_board_init_r_ofs>:
> >> 80e8017c:       00000748        .word   0x00000748
> >>
> >> 80e80180<_rel_dyn_start_ofs>:
> >> 80e80180:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
> >>
> >> 80e80184<_rel_dyn_end_ofs>:
> >> 80e80184:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
> >>
> >> 80e80188<_dynsym_start_ofs>:
> >> 80e80188:       0002358c        .word   0x0002358c
> >>
> >
> > I don't know if this was clear in the previous mail. Please note
> that
> > last three labels have same value.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Aneesh
> 
> Aneesh,
> 
> This has been seen on tx25 and analyzed over the last few days. The
> root
> cause was found to be a change in the .rel.dyn handling by the
> compilers. See if the fixes in
> 
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/88156>
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/88157>
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/88158>
> 
> can apply to your board; either the .lds fix as done in the first
> two
> patches, or the fix in the third one, or both.

Thanks. This helps. I did the .lds change and it seems to be booting
now. 

However, I can't still explain my earlier observation because even in 
the absence of this fix .rel.dyn had some content and the offsets 
should have been different if I were to believe objdump.

Do you have any clue? 

Best regards,
Aneesh

[U-Boot] Bad page state in process 'swapper'

[sywang]

While U-boot loads the Linux image, I have the following error.   Do you
have any suggestions on this? 


detected lzma initramfs
initramfs: LZMA lc=3,lp=0,pb=2,dictSize=8388608,origSize=12677632
Bad page state in process 'swapper'
page:a8000000007b3418 flags:0x0000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000
mapcount:-16711680 count:0
Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
Backtrace:
Unwound Call Trace:
[<ffffffff80211dc8>] dump_stack+0x8/0x48
[<ffffffff80265c98>] bad_page+0x78/0xb0
[<ffffffff80266988>] get_page_from_freelist+0x230/0x488
[<ffffffff80266c44>] __alloc_pages+0x64/0x348
[<ffffffff8027b4ac>] __vmalloc_area_node+0x10c/0x230
[<ffffffff804741cc>] populate_rootfs+0x974/0xae0
[<ffffffff802007e4>] init+0x84/0x530
[<ffffffff8020db58>] kernel_thread_helper+0x10/0x18


Thanks!
Shuyou

[U-Boot] Bad page state in process 'swapper'

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 02/11/2010 08:37, sywang a ?crit :
>
> While U-boot loads the Linux image, I have the following error.   Do you
> have any suggestions on this?
>
>
> detected lzma initramfs
> initramfs: LZMA lc=3,lp=0,pb=2,dictSize=8388608,origSize=12677632
> Bad page state in process 'swapper'
> page:a8000000007b3418 flags:0x0000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000
> mapcount:-16711680 count:0
> Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
> Backtrace:
> Unwound Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff80211dc8>] dump_stack+0x8/0x48
> [<ffffffff80265c98>] bad_page+0x78/0xb0
> [<ffffffff80266988>] get_page_from_freelist+0x230/0x488
> [<ffffffff80266c44>] __alloc_pages+0x64/0x348
> [<ffffffff8027b4ac>] __vmalloc_area_node+0x10c/0x230
> [<ffffffff804741cc>] populate_rootfs+0x974/0xae0
> [<ffffffff802007e4>] init+0x84/0x530
> [<ffffffff8020db58>] kernel_thread_helper+0x10/0x18
>
>
> Thanks!
> Shuyou

Hi Shuyou,

This is not 'while u-boot loads Linux', this is 'while Linux boots after 
it was loaded by u-boot', because these messages are from Linux.

I'd say these messages typically occur when the image (kernel+ramfs) is 
corrupted. What does u-boot display before jumping to the Linux kernel?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] Bad page state in process 'swapper'

[sywang]

Albert, 

Thanks for your reply.  My log is shown below.  What you say is right.  The
error information is from Linux.  I guess that what parameters passed to
Linux by u-boot may be not right.  However, I don't know how to identify? 

TFTP from server 192.168.5.101; our IP address is 192.168.5.22
Filename 'mips.ari'.
Load address: 0x9f00000
Loading: #############################################
done
Bytes transferred = 2917360 (2c83f0 hex)

Image is not signed; verifying checksum... passed
do_tftpboot, Linux image has been verified: pass
do_tftpboot, going to do_bootoctlinux 
octeon_phy_mem_block_free addr: 0x100000, size: 0x8000000
ELF file is 64 bit
block alloc called: req_size: 0x2b25e0, min_addr: 0xa00000, max_addr: 0x0,
align: 0x0
Allocated memory for ELF segment: addr: 0xa00000, size 0x2b25e0
block alloc called: req_size: 0xd0, min_addr: 0xcb25e0, max_addr: 0x0,
align: 0x0
Allocated memory for ELF segment: addr: 0xcb25e0, size 0xd0
Loading .text @ 0x80a00000 (0x2b25b8 bytes)
Clearing .bss @ 0x80cb25c0 (0x20 bytes)
Loading .data @ 0x80cb25e0 (0x30 bytes)
Loading .MIPS.options @ 0x80cb2610 (0xa0 bytes)
naddr 2
addr vec 0, 0x2b25e0 @ 0xa00000
addr vec 1, 0xd0 @ 0xcb25e0
## Loading OS kernel with entry point: 0x80a00000 ...
block alloc called: req_size: 0x77, min_addr: 0x0, max_addr: 0x7fffffff,
align: 0x0
block alloc called: req_size: 0x190, min_addr: 0x0, max_addr: 0x7fffffff,
align: 0x0
block alloc called: req_size: 0x98, min_addr: 0x0, max_addr: 0x7fffffff,
align: 0x0
board type is: 11, CN3010_EVB_HS5
stack expected: 0x0, actual: 0x0
heap_base expected: 0x0, actual: 0x0
heap_top expected: 0x0, actual: 0x0
Entry point (virt): 0x80a00000
Address of start app: 0xffffffff80096d90
Bootloader: Done loading app on coremask: 0x1
octeon_phy_mem_block_free addr: 0x9f00000, size: 0x6000000
octeon_phy_mem_block_free addr: 0x8100000, size: 0x3200
octeon_phy_mem_block_free addr: 0x8103200, size: 0x20000
octeon_phy_mem_block_free addr: 0x8123200, size: 0x32000
do_bootoctlinux, going to start_cores 
Bringing coremask: 0x1 out of reset!
Address of start app: 0xffffffff80070914
block alloc called: req_size: 0x330, min_addr: 0x0, max_addr: 0x40000000,
align: 0x0
Bootloader: Starting app at cycle: 0
Welcome to start_cores. (octeon_boot.c:1547)
start_cores, going to BOOT_VECTOR_BASE app_start_func_addr 80096d90
==== start_linux ====
printf_boot_init_vector stack_addr:0x80062f58 code_addr: 0x80070568
k0_val:0x8003ff44 flags:0x0 boot_info_addr:0x800c2440 pad:0x0 pad2:0x0
printf_boot_info_block entry_point:0x80a00000 boot_desc_addr: 0x100080
stack_top:0x0 exception_base:0x1000 cvmx_desc_addr:0x0 flags:0x0 
Welcome to start_linux. (cmd_octeon_linux.c:596)
Uncompressing..
Welcome to start_kernel. (init/main.c:458)

XXXX Networks
XXXXOS Version  (build 0000 / label #wangsy at -ENG.0000) 
Built by wangsy at localhost on 2010-11-02 at 15:09:36 CST (gcc version 3.4.5
Cavium Networks Version: 1.4.0, build 58)
Welcome to start_kernel. (init/main.c:472)
prom_init(arch/mips/cavium-octeon/setup.c:783) arcs_cmdline:
console=ttyS0,9600
prom_init(arch/mips/cavium-octeon/setup.c:790) para[0]: bootoctlinux
prom_init(arch/mips/cavium-octeon/setup.c:790) para[1]: 9f00200
prom_init(arch/mips/cavium-octeon/setup.c:790) para[2]: bootver=
1.1.4.0/wangsy at -ENG.0000
CVMSEG size: 2 cache lines (256 bytes)
Setting flash physical map for 4MB flash at 0x1f800000
Determined physical RAM map:
Welcome to start_kernel. (init/main.c:474)
Kernel command line: console=ttyS0,9600 rdinit=/sbin/init
Welcome to start_kernel. (init/main.c:505)
Primary instruction cache 32kB, virtually tagged, 4 way, 64 sets, linesize
128 bytes.
Primary data cache 16kB, 64-way, 2 sets, linesize 128 bytes.
Welcome to start_kernel. (init/main.c:518)
Using 500.000 MHz high precision timer. cycles_per_jiffy=1000000
Welcome to start_kernel. (init/main.c:532)
Memory: 57344k/65536k available (1918k kernel code, 8144k reserved, 561k
data, 2172k init, 0k highmem)
Calibrating delay using timer specific routine.. 1000.32 BogoMIPS
(lpj=1000323)
available.
Checking for the multiply/shift bug... no.
Checking for the daddi bug... no.
Checking for the daddiu bug... no.
Welcome to start_kernel. (init/main.c:616)
Welcome to rest_init. (init/main.c:396)
Welcome to schedule. (kernel/sched.c:2889)
Welcome to schedule. (kernel/sched.c:3065)
detected lzma initramfs
initramfs: LZMA lc=3,lp=0,pb=2,dictSize=8388608,origSize=12677632
Bad page state in process 'swapper'
page:a8000000007b3418 flags:0x0000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000
mapcount:-16711680 count:0
Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
Backtrace:
Unwound Call Trace:
[<ffffffff80211dc8>] dump_stack+0x8/0x48
[<ffffffff80265c98>] bad_page+0x78/0xb0
[<ffffffff80266988>] get_page_from_freelist+0x230/0x488
[<ffffffff80266c44>] __alloc_pages+0x64/0x348
[<ffffffff8027b4ac>] __vmalloc_area_node+0x10c/0x230
[<ffffffff804741cc>] populate_rootfs+0x974/0xae0
[<ffffffff802007e4>] init+0x84/0x530
[<ffffffff8020db58>] kernel_thread_helper+0x10/0x18

Thanks!
Shuyou

-----Original Message-----
From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud at free.fr] 
Sent: 2010?11?2? 15:44
To: sywang
Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
Subject: Re: Bad page state in process 'swapper'

Le 02/11/2010 08:37, sywang a ?crit :
>
> While U-boot loads the Linux image, I have the following error.   Do you
> have any suggestions on this?
>
>
> detected lzma initramfs
> initramfs: LZMA lc=3,lp=0,pb=2,dictSize=8388608,origSize=12677632
> Bad page state in process 'swapper'
> page:a8000000007b3418 flags:0x0000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000
> mapcount:-16711680 count:0
> Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
> Backtrace:
> Unwound Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff80211dc8>] dump_stack+0x8/0x48
> [<ffffffff80265c98>] bad_page+0x78/0xb0
> [<ffffffff80266988>] get_page_from_freelist+0x230/0x488
> [<ffffffff80266c44>] __alloc_pages+0x64/0x348
> [<ffffffff8027b4ac>] __vmalloc_area_node+0x10c/0x230
> [<ffffffff804741cc>] populate_rootfs+0x974/0xae0
> [<ffffffff802007e4>] init+0x84/0x530
> [<ffffffff8020db58>] kernel_thread_helper+0x10/0x18
>
>
> Thanks!
> Shuyou

Hi Shuyou,

This is not 'while u-boot loads Linux', this is 'while Linux boots after 
it was loaded by u-boot', because these messages are from Linux.

I'd say these messages typically occur when the image (kernel+ramfs) is 
corrupted. What does u-boot display before jumping to the Linux kernel?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] Bad page state in process 'swapper'

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear "sywang",

In message <20101102081321.0571D28090@theia.denx.de> you wrote:
>
> Image is not signed; verifying checksum... passed
> do_tftpboot, Linux image has been verified: pass
> do_tftpboot, going to do_bootoctlinux
> octeon_phy_mem_block_free addr: 0x100000, size: 0x8000000
> ELF file is 64 bit
> block alloc called: req_size: 0x2b25e0, min_addr: 0xa00000, max_addr:
...

You are using a proprietary version of U-Boot, where the source code
is not available to the public.

We have no idea what Cavium might have changed in U-Boot (obviously
they have changed a lot), of what their interface requirements are.

Please take all Cavium / Octon related questions to Cavium technical
support.  The U-Boot community CANNOT help you with that as we don not
have ANY informations about that code.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Bus error -- driver executed.

[U-Boot] Bad page state in process 'swapper'

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear "sywang",

In message <20101102073757.0C5E828093@theia.denx.de> you wrote:
> 
> While U-boot loads the Linux image, I have the following error.   Do you
> have any suggestions on this? 
> 
> 
> detected lzma initramfs
> initramfs: LZMA lc=3,lp=0,pb=2,dictSize=8388608,origSize=12677632
> Bad page state in process 'swapper'
> page:a8000000007b3418 flags:0x0000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000
> mapcount:-16711680 count:0
> Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
> Backtrace:
> Unwound Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff80211dc8>] dump_stack+0x8/0x48
> [<ffffffff80265c98>] bad_page+0x78/0xb0
> [<ffffffff80266988>] get_page_from_freelist+0x230/0x488
> [<ffffffff80266c44>] __alloc_pages+0x64/0x348
> [<ffffffff8027b4ac>] __vmalloc_area_node+0x10c/0x230
> [<ffffffff804741cc>] populate_rootfs+0x974/0xae0
> [<ffffffff802007e4>] init+0x84/0x530
> [<ffffffff8020db58>] kernel_thread_helper+0x10/0x18

These are Linux error messages.  This is the U-Boot mailing list.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Those who will be able to conquer software will be able  to  conquer
the world."                 - Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.

[U-Boot] Bad page state in process 'swapper'

[sywang]

Hi Wolfgang, 

Although the error is reported by Linux, I think that the linux is booted by
u-boot.   Or the issue at least is the extension issue of u-boot.  

I believe that there are guys who fixed my issues in our community.  So send
the sos email. Thanks for your understanding.  

Thanks!
Shuyou  

-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd at denx.de] 
Sent: 2010?11?2? 16:40
To: sywang
Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Bad page state in process 'swapper'

Dear "sywang",

In message <20101102073757.0C5E828093@theia.denx.de> you wrote:
> 
> While U-boot loads the Linux image, I have the following error.   Do you
> have any suggestions on this? 
> 
> 
> detected lzma initramfs
> initramfs: LZMA lc=3,lp=0,pb=2,dictSize=8388608,origSize=12677632
> Bad page state in process 'swapper'
> page:a8000000007b3418 flags:0x0000000000000000 mapping:0000000000000000
> mapcount:-16711680 count:0
> Trying to fix it up, but a reboot is needed
> Backtrace:
> Unwound Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff80211dc8>] dump_stack+0x8/0x48
> [<ffffffff80265c98>] bad_page+0x78/0xb0
> [<ffffffff80266988>] get_page_from_freelist+0x230/0x488
> [<ffffffff80266c44>] __alloc_pages+0x64/0x348
> [<ffffffff8027b4ac>] __vmalloc_area_node+0x10c/0x230
> [<ffffffff804741cc>] populate_rootfs+0x974/0xae0
> [<ffffffff802007e4>] init+0x84/0x530
> [<ffffffff8020db58>] kernel_thread_helper+0x10/0x18

These are Linux error messages.  This is the U-Boot mailing list.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Those who will be able to conquer software will be able  to  conquer
the world."                 - Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 02/11/2010 08:18, V, Aneesh a ?crit :

> Thanks. This helps. I did the .lds change and it seems to be booting
> now.

Good!

> However, I can't still explain my earlier observation because even in
> the absence of this fix .rel.dyn had some content and the offsets
> should have been different if I were to believe objdump.
>
> Do you have any clue?

There were two issues:

First, "older" linkers always emitted input relocation sections with the 
name ".rel.dyn" whereas "newer" linkers emitted them with names of the 
form ".rel*". As our linker files only took ".rel.dyn" to form the 
output section, using newer linkers would produce empty .rel.dyn sections.

Second, a fix to the first issue was RFCed to the list which worked on 
several boards but tx25 would not boot completely. The root cause of 
this second issue is that CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE in the board 
config file hard-codes the size of the u-boot binary that will be read 
from NAND and put in RAM. When/if u-boot grows in size, this constant 
must be adjusted, and it was not.

What hit you was the first issue for sure, and this explains why 
_rel_dyn_start_ofs and _rel_dyn_end_ofs are identical. What *could* have 
hit you was the second issue *if* your board boots from NAND *and* if 
u-boot grew beyond your CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE.

BTW, Wolfgang, couldn't this 'constant' be generated once objcopy has 
produced u-boot.bin? A script could 'du' its size, round it up as 
required, and generate a .h with the result so that the SPL would always 
compile with a correct value.

> Best regards,
> Aneesh

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[V, Aneesh]

Albert,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud at free.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:11 PM
> To: V, Aneesh
> Cc: Darius at theia.denx.de; hs at denx.de; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Augulis
> Subject: Re: arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS
> 
> Le 02/11/2010 08:18, V, Aneesh a ?crit :
> 
> > Thanks. This helps. I did the .lds change and it seems to be
> booting
> > now.
> 
> Good!
> 
> > However, I can't still explain my earlier observation because even
> in
> > the absence of this fix .rel.dyn had some content and the offsets
> > should have been different if I were to believe objdump.
> >
> > Do you have any clue?
> 
> There were two issues:
> 
> First, "older" linkers always emitted input relocation sections with
> the
> name ".rel.dyn" whereas "newer" linkers emitted them with names of
> the
> form ".rel*". As our linker files only took ".rel.dyn" to form the
> output section, using newer linkers would produce empty .rel.dyn
> sections.

My .rel.dyn was not empty even before taking your fix. 

This is what puzzled me. When I dumped the ELF headers with 'objdump -h'
.rel.dyn seemed to have some content: Please see the diff of objdump's
output before and after applying your patch. 

Please note that .rel.dyn was there even without the patch having the
same size but at a different offset. 

So, this is what it looks like to me: 
Even when our rule in .lds was not correct the linker generated 
.rel.dyn section by default putting together the 'rel*' sections that 
were not covered by any rules. But since it didn't use our rule for
this, the labels associated with our rule indicated zero size.

****************************************************************
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Idx Name          Size      VMA       LMA       File off  Algn
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
   2 .interp       00000011  80e9e6d0  80e9e6d0  000266d0  2**0
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
-  3 .dynamic      00000080  80ea343c  80ea343c  0002b43c  2**2
+  3 .dynamic      00000080  80e9f7ec  80e9f7ec  000277ec  2**2
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
   4 .dynsym       00000100  80ea34c8  80ea34c8  0002b4c8  2**2
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
@@ -17,12 +17,12 @@ Idx Name          Size      VMA       LMA       File off  Algn
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
   6 .hash         00000054  80e9e7a4  80e9e7a4  000267a4  2**2
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
-  7 .rel.dyn      00003c50  80e9e7f8  80e9e7f8  000267f8  2**2
-                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
-  8 .data         00000ff4  80ea2448  80ea2448  0002a448  2**2
+  7 .data         00000ff4  80e9e7f8  80e9e7f8  000267f8  2**2
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
-  9 .got.plt      0000000c  80ea34bc  80ea34bc  0002b4bc  2**2
+  8 .got.plt      0000000c  80e9f86c  80e9f86c  0002786c  2**2
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
+  9 .rel.dyn      00003c50  80e9f878  80e9f878  00027878  2**2
+                  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  10 .u_boot_cmd   00000540  80ea35c8  80ea35c8  0002b5c8  2**2
                   CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
  11 .bss          00031210  80ea3b08  80ea3b08  0002bb08  2**3
****************************************************************

> 
> Second, a fix to the first issue was RFCed to the list which worked
> on
> several boards but tx25 would not boot completely. The root cause of
> this second issue is that CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE in the board
> config file hard-codes the size of the u-boot binary that will be
> read
> from NAND and put in RAM. When/if u-boot grows in size, this
> constant
> must be adjusted, and it was not.
> 
> What hit you was the first issue for sure, and this explains why
> _rel_dyn_start_ofs and _rel_dyn_end_ofs are identical. What *could*
> have
> hit you was the second issue *if* your board boots from NAND *and*
> if
> u-boot grew beyond your CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_SIZE.

We did not face the second issue because we are loading the entire
u-boot.bin using a separate preloader. 

> 
> BTW, Wolfgang, couldn't this 'constant' be generated once objcopy
> has
> produced u-boot.bin? A script could 'du' its size, round it up as
> required, and generate a .h with the result so that the SPL would
> always
> compile with a correct value.
> 
> > Best regards,
> > Aneesh
> 
> Amicalement,
> --
> Albert.

Best regards,
Aneesh

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 02/11/2010 09:53, V, Aneesh a ?crit :

> My .rel.dyn was not empty even before taking your fix.
>
> This is what puzzled me. When I dumped the ELF headers with 'objdump -h'
> ..rel.dyn seemed to have some content: Please see the diff of objdump's
> output before and after applying your patch.
>
> Please note that .rel.dyn was there even without the patch having the
> same size but at a different offset.
>
> So, this is what it looks like to me:
> Even when our rule in .lds was not correct the linker generated
> ..rel.dyn section by default putting together the 'rel*' sections that
> were not covered by any rules. But since it didn't use our rule for
> this, the labels associated with our rule indicated zero size.

Correct: the linker dumped the ununsed .rel* input sections so you can 
see them, but they were outside of _rel_dyn_start / _rel_dyn_end, so for 
all useful purposes, we can say that .rel.dyn was empty. What was not 
empty was some other place in the binary that was not .rel.dyn as such.

> We did not face the second issue because we are loading the entire
> u-boot.bin using a separate preloader.

Ok.

> Best regards,
> Aneesh

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] arm: wrong Relocation and not cleared BSS

[Heiko Schocher]

Hello Alexander,

Alexander Holler wrote:
> to give the topic a better meaning and to summarize what I think is
> currently happening along with some "pictures" for a better understanding:
> 
> We are starting with code (c) and data (d) somewhere in the memory:
> 
> ----------
> |cd      |
> ----------
> 
> The relocation in start.S should achieve this:
> 
> ----------
> |      cd|
> ----------

Yep, and this works fine on boards, I have access(
arm1136 qong, arm926ejs tx25, suen3 arm926ejs kirkwood,
mx25 magnesium, armv7 omap3_beagle)

> That means code and data should be moved upwards. What
> currently is happening is the following:
> 
> ----------
> | d    c |
> ----------

really?

I posted you on 27.10.2010 in u-boot%irc.freenode.org (couldn;t
find this in the history :-(  )  a log on the tx25, where this works
fine, and we came to the opinion, that you maybe have problems
with your toolchain! IIRC you use gcc-4.5x ... Alexander, did
you tried (as you thought to do) ELDK-4.2 with gcc-4.2.x ?

Are you sure your toolchain works correct with -pie?

> The code is moved upwards, but that code still uses the data at d.
> This results another problem: Some parts in the code are assuming that d
> is cleared (set to zero in start.S). But what start.S does it to clear
> the new location (z in the picture below).
> 
> ----------
> | d    cz|
> ----------

which is OK.

> Because the code (c) still uses the data (bss) in d and not in z, some
> hard to find errors might occur because the used data isn't set to zero
> as required.

Yep, an that is, what you(we?) have to find out, why this not works
with your toolchain!

> I have almost no knowledge about how gcc and the binutils are handling
> relocation, therfore I can't help much further here. What I think is
> part of the problem, is that -fPIC was removed. Using -pie in LDFLAGS
> might be used to get relocatable code, but the data will not be
> relocated. And I would wonder if that is possible without instructing
> the compiler to build stuff for relocation (-fPIC).

Try to find out, why -pie not works with your tollchain!

bye,
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany