On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Aaron Durbin <adur...@google.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Paul Menzel > <paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> Dear coreboot folks, >> >> >> on the ASRock E350M1, I lately noticed that the SeaBIOS banner takes >> longer to appear. And looking at the logs board status [1], the time >> stamps stored in CBMEM confirm this. >> > > What were your typical times like? > >> ``` >> $ grep 1st asrock/e350m1/4.2-*/*/coreboot_timestamps.txt >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-33-g42444f6/2015-10-30T17:54:28Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 368,199 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-36-g0ace013/2015-10-31T13:22:12Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 368,416 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-37-gab35575/2015-10-31T18:23:47Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 367,904 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-41-g3c47e8a/2015-10-31T20:39:02Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 367,829 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-42-g0746452/2015-10-31T21:11:04Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 368,081 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-43-g160ad6a/2015-10-31T21:12:09Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 368,290 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-44-gbabb2e6/2015-10-31T21:14:48Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 368,023 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-53-gf6dc544/2015-11-01T13:27:02Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 368,470 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-58-g65eec4d/2015-11-02T15:41:33Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 679,462 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-628-g62c0276/2015-12-29T17:17:01Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 1,528,198 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-701-gb95a074/2016-01-08T01:44:15Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 1,298,841 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-702-gfecc24a/2016-01-08T16:21:59Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 1,289,489 >> asrock/e350m1/4.2-703-g8846382/2016-01-09T21:18:59Z/coreboot_timestamps.txt: >> 0:1st timestamp 1,289,756 >> ``` >> >> Unfortunately, there was a time, where I had forgotten to select this >> option, so I am still bisecting this. >> >> I thought, it might have been fixed with the commit 4.2-630-g65e33c0 >> below [1], but it’s not. >> >> ``` >> commit 65e33c08a9a88c52baaadaf515b9591856115a77 >> Author: Nico Huber <nico.hu...@secunet.com> >> Date: Mon Dec 28 20:17:13 2015 +0100 >> >> x86: Align CBFS on top of ROM >> >> Since the introduction of the new (interim?) master header, coreboot >> searches the whole ROM for CBFS entries. Fix that by aligning it on top >> of the ROM. >> >> Change-Id: I080cd4b746169a36462a49baff5e114b1f6f224a >> […] >> ``` >> >> Do you know, which commit the commit message referred to? >> >> Looking more into it, Nico’s commit was reverted in commit 4.2-673- >> g12c55ed [3] and the logic reworked. >> >> ``` >> commit 12c55eda11453ed1e7a24e218338831f67cd5de6 >> Author: Aaron Durbin <adur...@chromium.org> >> Date: Mon Jan 4 13:57:07 2016 -0600 >> >> Revert "x86: Align CBFS on top of ROM" >> >> This reverts commit 65e33c08a9a88c52baaadaf515b9591856115a77. >> This was the wrong logic to fix the master header. >> >> Change-Id: I4688034831f09ac69abfd0660c76112deabd62ec >> […] >> ``` >> >> If you have any suggestions, please tell me. Otherwise, I’d continue >> trying to bisect this. >> >> And unfortunately, I am unable to provide romstage messages, as I still >> haven’t got the serial header for the board. >> >> So if somebody else, Stefan, Martin, Kevin, could provide that, that >> would be awesome. > > Did you rebuild cbfstool that contains this patch? > https://review.coreboot.org/12825 It was the one I said fixed the > logic when you asked in https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/12824/. > Additionally, there's also the comments I left in > https://review.coreboot.org/12810 that explained how that patch was > incorrect. > > Please provide a hexdump snippet (hexdump -C image.rom) that shows the > "ORBC" section. That's the master header, and we can analyze if you > did indeed build w/ an updated cbfstool as well as determine if there > are other issues. >
I just looked at the 703-* log: CBFS: 'Master Header Locator' located CBFS at [100:3fffc0) That corresponds w/ your config: CONFIG_CBFS_SIZE=0x400000 CONFIG_ROM_SIZE=0x400000 So that's all correct. It's not cbfs as far as I can tell (seems unlikely). I suspect that your timestamps are just more correct. Where does your first timestamp original from? Is that in ramstage? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul >> >> >> PS: I’ll try to create a ticket for this issue in the bug tracker [4] >> this evening. >> >> >> [1] https://review.coreboot.org/gitweb?p=board-status.git;a=summary >> [2] https://review.coreboot.org/12810 >> [3] https://review.coreboot.org/12824 >> [4] https://ticket.coreboot.org/ >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
