[coreboot] v3 comments - was Serengeti vga hang
rminnich at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 19:52:26 CEST 2008
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Marc Jones <Marc.Jones at amd.com> wrote:
>> setting up resource map ex offset....
>> (0+0,18+0,1+0,44) & 0000f8f8 | 00000000+00000000
>> (0+0,18+0,1+0,4c) & 0000f8f8 | 00000001+00000000
> I don't think that resource setup needs to be done this early. There are no
> resources before HT init. It should go just before:
we can move it. I had not gotten around to doing that. V2 did it this
early. This type of resource setup is first on most (all?) opteron
mainboards in v2.
> Ram1.0, setting up CPU 0x00 northbridge registers
>> Choosing fallback boot.
It does this because of cmos IIRC or something.
>> LAR: File not found!
>> LAR: Run file fallback/initram/segment0 failed: No such file.
>> Fallback failed. Try normal boot
>> LAR: Attempting to open 'normal/initram/segment0'.
> I think that this came up way back when, but why is fallback tried first? Is
> this a configuration mistake? It is a waste of time which is making SimNow
> take even longer.
because we don't have the fallback/normal infrastructure set up yet.
>> prepare to InitDram:00000000 00000001 00000002
>> 00000003 00000004 00000005 00000006 00000007
>> 00000008 00000009
> That is some strange output....
>> find_device_operations: cons 0x00015260, cons id PCI: 1022:1100
>> find_device_operations: check all_device_operations[i] 0x00015800
>> dev_id_string: Unknown device ID type: 0
>> find_device_operations: cons 0x00015800, cons id Unknown …À‰ÁÆ À¤
>> constructor: constructor is 0x00000000
>> No ops found and no constructor called for PNP: 0000.
>> new_device: devcnt 4
>> find_device_operations: check all_device_operations[i] 0x00015200
> This is the CPU HT device. This section loops several times. What is
> coreboot trying to do?
> And then some stuff gets setup and it loop some more...
> Yeah, keep seeing this output come up again and again.
yes, it is SPEW. It's really verbose and it is not good or bad -- it's
For each device in the static tree, it walks the set of constructors,
trying to match the static tree device to a constructor. So you see a
lot of same output over and over. This thing also happens in v2 but
>> PCI: scan devfn 0xc0 to 0xff
>> PCI: devfn 0xc0
> What is this for? When scanning PCI stuff
will try to find out.
>> PCI: devfn 0xc4
>> pci_scan_get_dev: list is 0x000cf084, *list is 0x00016680
>> pci_scan_get_dev: check dev domain_0_pci_1_0 pci_scan_get_dev: check dev
>> domain_0_pci_1_0 it has devfn 0x08
>> pci_scan_get_dev: check dev domain_0_pci1_18_0 pci_scan_get_dev: check dev
>> domain_0_pci1_18_0 it has devfn 0xc0
>> pci_scan_get_dev: check dev domain_0_pci2_18_0 pci_scan_get_dev: check dev
>> domain_0_pci2_18_0 it has devfn 0xc0
>> pci_scan_get_dev: check dev domain_0_ioport_2e pci_scan_get_dev: child
>> domain_0_ioport_2e(IOPORT: 2e) not a pci device: it's type 11
>> pci_scan_get_dev: check dev dynamic PNP: 002e.0
> When scanning for PCI devices PNP IO areas should probably be skipped or I
> may just misunderstand what it is doing here...
it is being skipped. "domain_0_ioport_2e(IOPORT: 2e) not a pci device:
it's type 11"
The message is unclear.
> Where is phase4_enable_disable? Shouldn't it happen before Phase 4: Reading
> resources ?
It does, for each device, if it is set up for that device.
phase4_enable_disable was in v2 in a different name. The problem is
that sometimes you have to enable a device to read the resources.
phase4_enable_disable looks at dev->enabled and enables "whatever has
to be enabled" -- it's device dependent -- so that resources can be
read. It's called enable_disable because it can do both, depending on
device_enabled, and I was not clever enough to think of a better name
For most devices, it's empty.
> There is some 8111/8132 setup that might be causing the VGA issue?
not sure. I'd like to see where it's hanging. I think you're probably
right -- I bet it's reading a register, waiting for a bit to go low,
and never seeing anything but f's. That's the common issue with vga
More information about the coreboot