[U-Boot] Errors when starting sandbox

From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] Errors when starting sandbox
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:43:44 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPnjgZ1VkGfcXSZ1hA5YN+WcZw=UbtskxTTcuBWFqA0-fGmdpQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANr=Z=bn5_ft7cFmyUvro7PfU=i=-Tbag6ATM3c_swDL+N_wuw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Joe,

On 1 October 2018 at 16:01, Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > On 1 October 2018 at 15:14, Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> > Hi Joe,
> >> >
> >> > When I start sandbox now I see these errors every time. It is possible
> >> > to fix this?
> >> >
> >> > $ u-boot -D
> >> > ...
> >> > Warning: host_lo MAC addresses don't match:
> >> > Address in ROM is          ea:06:97:67:f4:b6
> >> > Address in environment is  00:00:11:22:33:44
> >> >
> >> > Warning: host_eth0 MAC addresses don't match:
> >> > Address in ROM is          ea:06:97:67:f4:b6
> >> > Address in environment is  00:00:11:22:33:45
> >> >
> >> > Warning: host_enp0s31f6 using MAC address from ROM
> >> >
> >> > Warning: host_eth6 MAC addresses don't match:
> >> > Address in ROM is          ea:06:97:67:f4:b6
> >> > Address in environment is  00:00:11:22:33:46
> >> >
> >> > Warning: host_docker_gwbridge using MAC address from ROM
> >> >
> >> > Warning: host_docker0 MAC addresses don't match:
> >> > Address in ROM is          ca:07:52:28:25:66
> >> > Address in environment is  00:00:11:22:33:47
> >> >
> >> > Warning: host_veth1f6bcd2 using MAC address from ROM
> >>
> >> These are warnings based on commit b96ced9cdb6 (sandbox: eth-raw: Make
> >> random MAC addresses available to eth-raw). Because we don't know the
> >> number of interfaces that exist on the given host when we write the
> >> sandbox.dts, we override the MAC addresses with random ones. In the
> >> normal case (real hardware), we would warn, since the hardware should
> >> know its interfaces.
> >>
> >> Do you have a proposed different approach? I don't like the idea of
> >> adding sandbox checks in the core code that prints this warning, and
> >> it also doesn't seem like a great idea to add a hook that doesn't warn
> >> just for sandbox.
> >>
> >> I'm happy to work on this, but I didn't address it at the time because
> >> I didn't see a clear way to do it that didn't degrade the code in
> >> order to remove warnings in sandbox.
> >
> > Can we make it so that the addresses do actually match in sandbox?
>
> The issue is that the eth(N)?addr lives in the default env and the
> interfaces are discovered by drivers/net/sandbox-raw-bus.c. Currently
> we make sure we don't "run out" of addresses defined in the env by
> using a randomly generated one instead. Unfortunately, the env is
> shared with all modes of sandbox, so while the addresses are not
> shared when running sandbox.dts, they are required when running
> test.dts.
>
> Thoughts?
>

How about a device-tree property that is only present in the test DT,
to control the behaviour?

Regards,
Simon