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. > >> 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. > > > 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. > > 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. 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 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 normal/initram/segment0 (432 bytes @0x4170);loadaddress 0x0 entry 0x0x42 bootblock (20480 bytes @0x3b000) -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
