On 11.02.2008 18:08, Myles Watson wrote: > On Feb 10, 2008 5:07 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >>>> configuring. >>>> > > 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 >>>> instead). >>>> >>>> >>> 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. > Yes. >>> 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 > normal/stage2/segment0. > > I didn't use buildrom at all for this, and I used the default (make > menuconfig; exit) config. > > Thanks for the lar -l suggestion. > You're welcome. > Here's the URL to the failing ROM: > http://www.pel.cs.byu.edu/~myles/failing.lzma.rom.tar.gz > > Myles > > normal/option_table (932 bytes @0x50);loadaddress 0x0 entry 0x0 > OK > normal/stage2/segment0 (191792 bytes, lzma compressed to 110 bytes > @0x450);loadaddress 0x0xa1c0 entry 0x0x2000 > That's bss. > normal/stage2/segment1 (28084 bytes, lzma compressed to 14976 bytes > @0x510);loadaddress 0x0x2000 entry 0x0x2000 > That's code. > 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) > OK 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. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
