[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170907161650.GP5024@atomide.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:16:51 -0700
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, pali.rohar@...il.com, sre@...nel.org,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, khilman@...nel.org,
aaro.koskinen@....fi, ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com,
patrikbachan@...il.com, serge@...lyn.com, abcloriens@...il.com,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: n900 in next-20170901
* Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> [170907 00:30]:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 06:30:57AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> [170905 16:32]:
> > > I think that I made a mistake for configuration CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y and
> > > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP=y. In this case, the MOVABLE_ZONE can
> > > be *!highmem*. Could you check that your configuration have above
> > > options?
> >
> > CONFIG_HIGHMEM is set yeah.
> >
> > > And, could you check that following patch works for you?
> >
> > Does not seem to help, tried against next with just 9caf25f996e8
> > revert and also with 9caf25f996e8.
>
> Oops. I misunderstood your problem. Could you test with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL?
Sure.
> After commit 9caf25f996e8, user for CMA memory should use to check
> PageHighmem in order to get proper virtual address of the page. If
> someone doesn't use it, it is possible to use wrong virtual address
> and it then causes the use of wrong physical address.
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL would catch this case.
OK, no extra output of current next with CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y.
Booting of n900 hangs with just the same error:
save_secure_sram() returns 0000ff02
> If it doesn't help, is there a way to test n900 configuration in QEMU?
I doubt that QEMU n900 boots in secure mode but instead shows
the SoC as general purpose SoC. If so, you'd have to patch the
omap3_save_secure_ram_context() to attempt to save secure RAM
context in all cases. If that works then debugging with any
omap3 board like beagleboard in QEMU should work.
Regards,
Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists