[coreboot] Weirdness with lzma setting in v3
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Mon Feb 11 18:28:26 CET 2008
On 11.02.2008 18:08, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2008 5:07 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 10.02.2008 05:15, Myles Watson wrote:
>>>> On 08.02.2008 20:08, Myles Watson wrote:
>>>>> Sorry in advance that I only have time to report the problem. If no
>>>>> one beats me to it I'll look into it a little more on Monday.
>>>>> Something goes wrong when lzma is enabled (which it is by default)
>>>>> I'm attaching my config which succeeds (nolzma.config), and the serial
>>>>> output from qemu using lzma and not. For some reason, segment0 gets
>>>>> found twice when lzma is used? Anyway, it doesn't find the devices it
>>>>> should and dies.
>>>> Very weird. It worked for me, but I always issue a make distclean before
> I was removing the directory every time, but if it were a makefile
> issue it would still be an important bug to me.
The build/ directory in coreboot or the whole coreboot directory?
Removing the build/ directory is not equivalent to a make distclean.
Simply copying defconfig to .config will cause build errors, btw. You
have to make oldconfig after copying over the defconfig (bug?).
>>>> I just tried the default coreboot config again (make distclean; make
>>>> menuconfig; (exit and save)) and my log (with lzma) looks exactly
>>>> (except for different compression) like your working log (without lzma).
>>>> Having the failing .config would help a lot. The failing ROM would also
>>>> be interesting (please don't send that to the list, upload it somewhere
>>> The failing .config is in mainboard/emulation/qemu-x86/defconfig
>> Boot log with defconfig attached. Works for me.
> I guess it must be another tool issue.
>>> It's the same (except for ROM Size) as the one you got (hopefully.)
>>> I'll put the ROM somewhere else if it still fails for me on Monday. It's
>>> possible that it's buildrom's problem. I haven't tried the ROM without
>>> adding the payload.
>> I usually don't use buildrom for my tests and I don't specify a payload.
>> That saves a lot of time for the stuff I'm working on.
> I can see why you would save time testing that way, but coreboot
> without a payload is only of academic interest. There should be some
> testing with a payload.
Actually, coreboot with a payload is of lesser prcatical interest than
coreboot without a payload, unless the interested person is an end-user
or wants to debug IRQ issues.
>> If you manage to reproduce with a non-buildrom coreboot build with only
>> a single instance of make (no "make -j"), we should indeed investigate.
>> Right now I'd say the archive is corrupted/contains garbage. This should
>> be verifiable with "lar -l coreboot.rom".
>> The next step would be to find out how the archive ended up that way.
>> Multiple lar instances working on the same archive at the same time?
>> Parallelization issues? RAM/disk corruption?
> I tried it again with the latest from svn. Here's the output from lar
> -l. lzma is achieving some amazing compression, and there are two
> I didn't use buildrom at all for this, and I used the default (make
> menuconfig; exit) config.
> Thanks for the lar -l suggestion.
> Here's the URL to the failing ROM:
> normal/option_table (932 bytes @0x50);loadaddress 0x0 entry 0x0
> normal/stage2/segment0 (191792 bytes, lzma compressed to 110 bytes
> @0x450);loadaddress 0x0xa1c0 entry 0x0x2000
> normal/stage2/segment1 (28084 bytes, lzma compressed to 14976 bytes
> @0x510);loadaddress 0x0x2000 entry 0x0x2000
> normal/stage2/segment0 (4540 bytes, lzma compressed to 316 bytes
> @0x3fe0);loadaddress 0x0x9000 entry 0x0x2000
Now that one should be data.
> normal/initram/segment0 (432 bytes @0x4170);loadaddress 0x0 entry 0x0x42
> bootblock (20480 bytes @0x3b000)
Please upload build/lar.tmp/normal/stage2. It seems the lar utility is
parsing the file incorrectly and I want to know if this is a toolchain
interaction problem or a lar issue.
More information about the coreboot