Ok, I tried XIP. It stopped at some ddxx post code this time (should have wrote it down). I power cycled to see if it was repeatable, and now the board doesn’t boot at all. It powers on (LEDs, CPU fan, …), but the post code display remains blank, and it doesn’t appear to be doing anything, as if it’s otherwise dead.
Furthermore, restoring the factory UEFI BIOS no longer boots either. Now what? Any suggestions? - Jay Jay Talbott Principal Consulting Engineer SysPro Consulting, LLC 3057 E. Muirfield St. Gilbert, AZ 85298 (480) 704-8045 (480) 445-9895 (FAX) [email protected] http://www.sysproconsulting.com <http://www.sysproconsulting.com/> From: Matt DeVillier [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:58 AM To: Jay Talbott Cc: Nico Huber; coreboot; Stefan Reinauer Subject: Re: [coreboot] Who has experience with the Intel RVP7 (or RVP15) CRB? On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jay Talbott <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Matt, I’ll try XIP and see what happens… but how would that impact the UPD signature? The signature is defined in coreboot/src/vendorcode/intel/fsp/fsp2_0/skykabylake/FspUpd.h, as well as in FspUpd.h in the headers included with the FSP on GitHub. ok, but those signatures match for all three FSP segments (coreboot and github) -- in fact, the FspUpd.h file is exactly the same between the two, and I've verified that's what's in the blobs as well. ref: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/coreboot/coreboot/master/src/vendorcode/intel/fsp/fsp2_0/skykabylake/FspUpd.h https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IntelFsp/FSP/Kabylake/KabylakeFspBinPkg/Include/FspUpd.h - Jay Jay Talbott Principal Consulting Engineer SysPro Consulting, LLC 3057 E. Muirfield St. <https://maps.google.com/?q=3057+E.+Muirfield+St.+Gilbert,+AZ+85298&entry=gmail&source=g> Gilbert, AZ 85298 <https://maps.google.com/?q=3057+E.+Muirfield+St.+Gilbert,+AZ+85298&entry=gmail&source=g> (480) 704-8045 (480) 445-9895 (FAX) [email protected] http://www.sysproconsulting.com <http://www.sysproconsulting.com/> From: Matt DeVillier [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:59 AM To: Jay Talbott Cc: Nico Huber; coreboot; Stefan Reinauer Subject: Re: [coreboot] Who has experience with the Intel RVP7 (or RVP15) CRB? On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Jay Talbott <[email protected]> wrote: Ok, more details... I'm currently building Coreboot off the end of the master branch as of commit 43a285f983f6c29467d7f30f7e2b402926bd5c6f, but might back up to the commit where the RVP7 support was added to see if that helps: https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/commit/2ed14f61d1a2976d0ebce59fcc67bd61 <https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/commit/2ed14f61d1a2976d0ebce59fcc67bd61fce4100d> fce4100d I'm using the KBL FSP from GitHub: https://github.com/IntelFsp/FSP/tree/Kabylake/KabylakeFspBinPkg I got the SplitFspBin.py tool and split the FSP into its three separate components. And, eventually, found the right microcode files and made them into a binary blob using a modified version of the microcode2bin.sh script I found in the coreboot tree. My .config file (renamed as config.txt) is attached. you need to use the execute in place (XIP) option for FSP-M in your config Note that the signature in the Fsp_M binary UPD struct is what does not match what's in the corresponding FSP header file - and not just the header file in the coreboot tree, but the one published as part of the FSP package on GitHub. So something is definitely amiss here with this published FSP package. I'm not seeing any hardcoded signature value in FspmUpd.h (as there is in FSP 1.1) - can you point to a specific file/line number? I do not have the serial console working yet, so all I've had to go by are post codes, and the last post code I was getting was 0x34, which I tracked down to be a hardcoded (grr...) value at the beginning of do_fsp_memory_init() in file memory_init.c of the FSP 2.0 driver (./src/drivers/intel/fsp2_0)... static void do_fsp_memory_init(struct fsp_header *hdr, bool s3wake, const struct memranges *memmap) { uint32_t status; fsp_memory_init_fn fsp_raminit; FSPM_UPD fspm_upd, *upd; FSPM_ARCH_UPD *arch_upd; uint32_t fsp_version; post_code(0x34); fsp_version = fsp_memory_settings_version(hdr); upd = (FSPM_UPD *)(hdr->cfg_region_offset + hdr->image_base); if (upd->FspUpdHeader.Signature != FSPM_UPD_SIGNATURE) die("Invalid FSPM signature!\n"); ... I added a post code as part of the if to confirm that the signature mis-match was where the code was hanging. So I'm 100% certain that the mis-match exists with this particular FSP. Also, although the signature is the same, there are a few other differences between the header files included with the FSP and those currently in coreboot, but nothing that would seemingly account for this issue. Note that this particular FSP release on GitHub does NOT include any release notes to indicate for which SkyLake/Kaby Lake variants (-H, -U, -Y, etc.) it is applicable, but someone from Intel suggested that it's only applicable to -H. If that's the case, then how was the RVP7 support ever validated prior to integration into the coreboot tree? Which FSP was actually used? And does that even have anything to do with the signature mis-match issue? Nobody seems to know. I've been trying to get support on this through various channels at Intel that so far have not been particularly helpful, and it's extremely frustrating. I've sent several e-mails to various folks, including the individual that upstreamed the RVP7 support to coreboot and the individual who published the FSP to GitHub, which remain unanswered. Any help from the coreboot community would be most appreciated! Thanks! - Jay Jay Talbott Principal Consulting Engineer SysPro Consulting, LLC 3057 E. Muirfield St. <https://maps.google.com/?q=3057+E.+Muirfield+St.+Gilbert,+AZ+85298&entry=gmail&source=g> Gilbert, AZ 85298 <https://maps.google.com/?q=3057+E.+Muirfield+St.+Gilbert,+AZ+85298&entry=gmail&source=g> (480) 704-8045 (480) 445-9895 (FAX) [email protected] http://www.sysproconsulting.com > -----Original Message----- > From: coreboot [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nico > Huber > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 5:38 AM > To: Jay Talbott; [email protected] > Cc: Stefan Reinauer > Subject: Re: [coreboot] Who has experience with the Intel RVP7 (or RVP15) > CRB? > > Hi Jay, > > On 04.11.2017 01:26, Jay Talbott wrote: > > I'm trying to get coreboot up and running on an Intel RVP15 CRB, which is > > the same as the RVP7 except that the RVP15 has DDR4 memory instead of > DDR3. > > > > There is a mainboard solution for the RVP7 in coreboot. However, the > current > > KabyLake FSP published on GitHub doesn't seem like it's the right FSP for > > the SkyLake-U/KabyLake-U. If nothing else, there's a problem with that FSP > > such that the signature in the FSP-M UPD header does not match the > signature > > in the corresponding header files, so when the FSP 2.0 driver in coreboot > > goes to check that they are a match, execution dies right there. > > > > if (upd->FspUpdHeader.Signature != FSPM_UPD_SIGNATURE) > > die("Invalid FSPM signature!\n"); > > > > (coreboot/src/drivers/intel/fsp2_0/memory_init.c, in function > > do_fsp_memory_init) > > > > I don't want to bypass that check in the code in case the FSP posted to > > GitHub isn't the right FSP for this particular SoC. > > the FSP binary is probably the correct one, but you have to separate it > into three pieces: FSP-T, FSP-M, FSP-S. Did you do that? Only FSP-M and > FSP-S are needed in coreboot. There is a script (SplitFspBin.py in EDK > II) that can separate the blobs, I have no idea why Intel puts them to- > gether at all. > > IIRC, there is no version check on the binary. You have to compare the > header files used in coreboot and those that come with the binary manu- > ally. Generally, the binaries on github work with corebot. But they seem > to come out of a different development process at Intel. The Intel deve- > lopers working on coreboot seem to have no clue that the binaries on > github exist at all. And if you compare the history of the header files > in coreboot to those on github you'll see that Intel either pushes the > wrong headers or the binaries on github and the binaries used for core- > boot development are not from the same branch. It's really creepy (and > hard to tell which of the versions are the one with the backdoors oO). > > > Obviously, somebody at Intel has the right FSP that works for these boards > > in order to validate that the coreboot implementation worked prior to > > upstreaming it to the repo. I'm just not sure how to get the right one so > > that I can get this booting. > > As you have access to a CRB, your contact to Intel is probably better > than mine. You have to ask Intel. OEMs/ODMs/IBVs, they all seem to have > access to the binaries used for coreboot development... IMHO, a huge > offense to the coreboot community that we get to maintain the code for > blobs that we'll never see; not even the binaries! > > > Furthermore, I have yet to get the serial console working on the DB-9 serial > > port. I have the jumpers on the board configured to connect it to UART #2, > > and configured in coreboot accordingly, but I get nothing for console > > output. > > Please attach your .config file and point to the source revision you are > using. Hard to tell anything w/o the code. > > Nico > > -- > coreboot mailing list: [email protected] > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
