Re: omap3: omap3530_beagle_per_uart_defconfig broken

[Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:09:45AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 08/17/2010 01:50 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 08:35:54AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:51:38PM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> while just giving the omap3530 boot from internal sram a whirl, found that
>>>>
>>>> commit 78104ae181f78d83664fdc7522eb632d9c3b2ec9
>>>> Author: Sascha Hauer<s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
>>>> Date:   Fri Apr 16 15:50:30 2010 +0200
>>>>
>>>>      arm: reimplement startup code in C
>>>>
>>>>      Lets translate the startup code to a language we all understand better.
>>>>      Tested on pcm038 (arm v5) and pcm043 (arm v6).
>>>>
>>>>      Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer<s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
>>>>
>>>> broke the support for OMAP3530 internal boot capability ->  it looks like
>>>> many of the V7Dcache skip logic got dropped off in the patch. will try
>>>> to fix it ahead.. reverting this commit helps the barebox master..
>>>
>>> We worked on Omap lately. I remember that there was a problem with the
>>> call to arch_init_lowlevel. Michael, do you have input on this?
>>
>> This commit indeed broke omap because the call to arch_init_lowlevel was
>> missing afterwards. This got fixed with 3aa5c83. Maybe you have a
>> different problem and stumbled upon this commit while bisecting. You
>> could try checking out 78104ae181f78d83664fdc7522eb632d9c3b2ec9 and
>> cherry-pick 3aa5c83. Does this work?
>
> will try later tonight (but I doubt it - I had tried master and next -

The fixup patch already came in between v2010.06.0 and v2010.07.0. So
there definitely is a window in which barebox was broken. Maybe you hit
this while bisecting. Maybe there is a second one which is the real
cause of your trouble here.

> it did not build yesterday due to ehci/otg changes, but those have  
> patches from Michael today), but to give an idea, attached is my revert  
> patch I applied(against master), but if you see there are two parts  
> between arch_init_lowlevel and board_init_lowlevel:
> cache invalidate
> and configuration of cache
>
> Just glancing, cache invalidate logic that got introduced is the  
> v4/v5(?) logic I guess, not the v7 logic.

Nope, we do have v7 logic.

> let me see later tonight if  
> there is a cleaner way to do it..
>
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon



-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox