mail archive of the barebox mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Olleson <mark.olleson@yamaha.co.uk>
To: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Fwd: PATCH: Fix MMC boot in OMAP4 xload configurations
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:18:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <689AA175-B33D-4D56-994B-747B2C5CF019@yamaha.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FCA231F0-6BD8-4368-8303-C664165FAC42@yamaha.co.uk>

> Sascha,
> On 24 Feb 2012, at 07:23, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:53:28PM +0000, Mark Olleson wrote:
>>> omap4_bootsrc() always returns OMAP_BOOTSRC_UNKNOWN when an OMAP4
>>> xload image is built with pcm049_xload_defconfig.  This is likely to
>>> be the case for all OMAP4 xload configurations.
>>> 
>>> This means that when the CPU is configured to boot from MMC1 with
>>> boot[5:0],  xload will load the second stage boot loader from NAND
>>> flash (if present) rather than MMC1 as intended. 
>>> 
>>> omap4_bootsrc() reads data left behind towards the top of the SRAM by
>>> the ROM-based boot-loader.  This is the same SRAM into which the xload
>>> image is loaded.   The xload image is of a sufficient size that it
>>> overwrites these locations, and OMAP4_TRACING_VECTOR3 always contains
>>> 0.
>>> 
>>> These locations are in fact trampled by data in the BSS section of the
>>> image.   The single largest item in there is FILE files[MAX_FILES].
>>> This patch reduces the size of files[] considerably.  The image now
>>> JUST fits.
>> 
>> Sorry, this is not even a short term solution, it will probably break
>> very soon again.
> 
> I totally agree - this fixed me in the very short term, but we're sailing so close 
> to the wind here that changes in the any (few) modules that are used in these 
> configurations will break it again. 
> 
> My patch was really a heads-up that we have an issue. 
> 
>> 


On further digging,  this gets even worse:  Barebox's initial stack is in the same area of SRAM as the ROM-loader's - overwriting the area where bss section of the image is getting loaded, containing various areas of static storage.  Here, these addresses were falling somewhere in the middles of:

static FILE files[MAX_FILES]

Thankfully, there isn't a great deal of function call depth before the stack is then set up in SDRAM, and tramples here don't matter too much.   

Anyway, be warned - some interesting failure modes lie ahead should some of the other bits of static data or even program code fall at this location!


Mark
---

Mark Olleson - Senior R&D Engineer
Technology Research & Development Group
Yamaha R&D Centre London

mark.olleson@yamaha.co.uk






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

      reply	other threads:[~2012-02-24 16:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <5E5BF80D-E268-4688-8E16-5BF26FBD7D4D@yamaha.co.uk>
2012-02-24 15:57 ` Mark Olleson
2012-02-24 16:18   ` Mark Olleson [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=689AA175-B33D-4D56-994B-747B2C5CF019@yamaha.co.uk \
    --to=mark.olleson@yamaha.co.uk \
    --cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox