On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Paul Menzel <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Samstag, den 11.07.2015, 08:00 -0500 schrieb Aaron Durbin: >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Paul Menzel wrote: > > […] > >> > With the latest changes we they are measured relatively to system >> > start. >> > >> > $ more >> > asrock/e350m1/4.0-10270-gbd1499d/2015-07-10T13\:23\:53Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt >> > 12 entries total: >> > >> > 10:start of ramstage 385,974 >> > 30:device enumeration 385,982 (8) >> > 40:device configuration 480,233 (94,250) >> > 50:device enable 484,088 (3,855) >> > 60:device initialization 494,049 (9,960) >> > 70:device setup done 508,368 (14,318) >> > 75:cbmem post 508,736 (368) >> > 80:write tables 508,741 (4) >> > 90:load payload 513,320 (4,579) >> > 15:starting LZMA decompress (ignore for x86) 513,574 (253) >> > 16:finished LZMA decompress (ignore for x86) 531,423 (17,848) >> > 99:selfboot jump 531,445 (21) >> >> This is actually surprising, but I just looked into it. I see why; >> it's from my most recent change. > > yes, I also assumed it was due to your change set [1]. > >> If I guard with CONFIG_EARLY_CBMEM_INIT it'd go back to the previous >> way. > > I do too. > >> But I actually do like this way (though unintended). The base_time >> was never properly exported it from cbmem: >> >> > -------for (i = 0; i < tst_p->num_entries; i++) { >> > ------->-------const struct timestamp_entry *tse_p = tst_p->entries + i; >> > ------->-------timestamp_print_entry(tse_p->entry_id, tse_p->entry_stamp, >> > ------->------->-------i ? tse_p[-1].entry_stamp : 0); >> > -------} >> >> It always assumed 0 as a base_time. Without the diff below base_time >> is actually 0 in this case so you see the accumulated time until >> ramstage started. I actually think we should fix cbmem.c to not pass 0 >> as prev_stamp for 0th index. It should be passing base_time as well as >> reporting what base_time was from an informational perspective. > > I totally agree.
Care to test this and show the output? See what you like? I don't have a machine up to test against at the moment. The same information is there, but it's shown in a different way in that base_time is reported as an entry of '1st timestamp'. Your example would change to something like this: 0:1st timestamp 385,974 10:start of ramstage 385,975 (1) 30:device enumeration 385,983 (8) ... http://review.coreboot.org/10883 > >> If we want to change it back it's not that hard: > > […] > > I can’t think of a reason, why we’d want to have the old behavior back. > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > >> > [1] http://review.coreboot.org/10880 -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
