-----Original Message-----
From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 1:04 AM
To: Leekha Shaveta-B20052 <shav...@freescale.com>
Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org <edk2-de...@ml01.01.org>; Fu, Siyuan 
<siyuan...@intel.com>; Chris Cuthbert <nd6...@hotmail.com>; Gary Ching-Pang Lin 
<g...@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2] TFTP issue, Ping 1st packet reply missing

On 09/24/15 13:08, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

> BTW when I wrote that I had just tested PXE boot, I didn't use the 
> UEFI shell utility; it was a network boot option instead.

Now I tested the shell command too, in my usual virtual network environment; it 
works fine for me.

Thanks
Laszlo

I Too faced compilation issues, so I picked up "Guid/NicIp4ConfigNvData.h" file 
from tianocore site
" 
http://sourceforge.net/p/tianocore/edk2/ci/2638c111076f9a49d4766ca5acbafa0eb7f66a18/tree/MdeModulePkg/Include/Guid/NicIp4ConfigNvData.h";
Copied it in Guid folder and my code compiled.

Is this the correct file to compile the code with?

Regards,
Shaveta

> 
> ... I tried to build the TFTP shell command into OVMF now, just to 
> test it, but it failed to compile, and the patch that supposedly fixes 
> it is not readable on the list. :(
> 
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> 
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Shaveta
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:05 PM
>> To: Leekha Shaveta-B20052 <shav...@freescale.com>
>> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org <edk2-de...@ml01.01.org>; Fu, Siyuan 
>> <siyuan...@intel.com>; Chris Cuthbert <nd6...@hotmail.com>; Gary 
>> Ching-Pang Lin <g...@suse.com>
>> Subject: Re: [edk2] TFTP issue, Ping 1st packet reply missing
>>
>> On 09/24/15 08:04, Leekha Shaveta wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Tftp is also giving issues.
>>>
>>> During tftp, as one of its step it calls " GetFileSize"
>>> Which go through Mtftp4 protocol and calls " Mtftp4->GetInfo"
>>>
>>> And this fails.
>>>
>>> Any idea what is the issue with tftp command? Has anyone tested it 
>>> successfully?
>>
>> I frequently retest TFTP, and I just did it right now as well, on top of 
>> current master. It works fine. My test environment is a virtual network, 
>> where OVMF runs in a virtual machine, and DHCP and TFTP are configured by 
>> libvirt and served by dnsmasq. The edk2 PXE client downloads shim, then shim 
>> downloads grub (with the PXE Base Code protocol), then grub downloads the 
>> kernel and the initial ramdisk, for a networked linux installation.
>>
>> I have encountered and/or investigated quite a few TFTP issues, and 
>> most of the time they have occurred due to problematic DHCP or TFTP 
>> config, or problems in UEFI applications, or lower level network 
>> driver implementations. (In several other cases though, people 
>> contributed edk2 fixes ultimately.)
>>
>> Anyhow, the first thing to in such cases is to capture a detailed packet log 
>> with tcpdump or wireshark, and analyze the packets against the DHCP / TFTP 
>> server config, the DHCP / PXE specs, and the edk2 code. Usually (again, in 
>> my experience, although I don't claim to be an expert), the DHCP / TFTP 
>> server config, or -- possibly -- the network is the culprit.
>>
>> Please capture some packets, and analyze them. Analyzing DHCP packets 
>> against the specs and the server config takes forever, but I've found it to 
>> be the only way. Good luck.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Laszlo
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> Shaveta
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf 
>>> Of Leekha Shaveta
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:15 AM
>>> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>> Subject: [edk2] Ping 1st packet reply missing
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My ping is working  with Intel's E1000 driver code.
>>>
>>> But everytime 1st packet is not getting received successfully, is there 
>>> some known issue here, or something to be set/missing?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Shaveta
>>>
>>> Ping Snippet:
>>> ===========
>>> Shell> ping 192.168.3.1ping 192.168.3.1 -n 16
>>> InstallProtocolInterface: 41D94CD2-35B6-455A-8258-D4E51334AADD DF56EA60 
>>> Ping 192.168.3.1 16 data bytes.
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 0
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 1
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=2 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 2
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=3 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 3
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=4 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 4
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=5 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 5
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=6 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 6
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=7 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 7
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=8 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 0
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=9 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 1
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=10 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 2
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=11 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 3
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=12 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 4
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=13 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 5
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=14 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 6
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=15 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 7
>>> 16 bytes from 192.168.3.1 : icmp_seq=16 ttl=0 time=1ms
>>>
>>> 16 packets transmitted, 15 received, 6% packet loss, time 15ms
>>>
>>> Rtt(round trip time) min=1ms max=1ms avg=1ms
>>>
>>>  Sent 1 packet:
>>> Shell> ping 192.168.3.1 -n 1
>>> InstallProtocolInterface: 41D94CD2-35B6-455A-8258-D4E51334AADD DF56EA60 
>>> Ping 192.168.3.1 16 data bytes.
>>> GigAdapter->cur_rx_ind: 4
>>>
>>> 1 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 0ms
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Leekha Shaveta-B20052
>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:34 PM
>>>> To: 'Benjamin Herrenschmidt' 
>>>> <b...@kernel.crashing.org<mailto:b...@kernel.crashing.org>>; 
>>>> 'Andrew Fish' <af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>>;
>>>> 'edk2-devel@lists.01.org' 
>>>> <edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>>; 'Tian, 
>>>> Feng' <feng.t...@intel.com<mailto:feng.t...@intel.com>>
>>>> Subject: Re: PCI and non-1:1 mapping of MMIO space (Doubt o PCI 
>>>> Root bridge IOMap and IoAllocateBuffer)
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I was implementing PCI RootBridgeIo protocol and have some doubts in 
>>>> "IoMap" and "AllocateBuffer" functions of this protocol.
>>>>
>>>> In our platform, PCI space is starting form address 0x50_0000_0000 (40 bit 
>>>> addressable) And its mapping on PCI bus is like:
>>>> 50_0000_0000 => 0000_0000 (32 bit)
>>>>
>>>> From where the "AllocateBuffer" function should allocate memory when asked 
>>>> by any PCI device?
>>>> What is the meaning of "Allocates pages that are suitable for an 
>>>> EfiPciOperationBusMasterCommonBuffer or
>>>> EfiPciOperationBusMasterCommonBuffer64 mapping"
>>>>
>>>> How to manage mapping in "RootBridgeIoMap" function?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>>> Shaveta
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf 
>>>> Of Tian, Feng
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 7:24 AM
>>>> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>>>> <b...@kernel.crashing.org<mailto:b...@kernel.crashing.org>>; Andrew 
>>>> Fish <af...@apple.com<mailto:af...@apple.com>>
>>>> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
>>>> <edk2-de...@ml01.01.org<mailto:edk2-de...@ml01.01.org>>; Tian, Feng 
>>>> <feng.t...@intel.com<mailto:feng.t...@intel.com>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] PCI and non-1:1 mapping of MMIO space
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Ben & Andrew
>>>>
>>>> The GetBarAttributes() returns a set of ACPI 2.0 resource descriptors that 
>>>> describe the current configuration of the BARs of the PCI controller.
>>>>
>>>> What I understood is the returned value of GetBarAttributes() is a CPU 
>>>> address rather than a PCI address. From the view of PciIo, nobody needs to 
>>>> know/use Bar's PCI address.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Feng
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org] On Behalf 
>>>> Of Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 07:54
>>>> To: Andrew Fish
>>>> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2] PCI and non-1:1 mapping of MMIO space
>>>>
>>>> (Argh, I keep sending these from my IBM address which isn't the one on the 
>>>> list. Sorry Andrew for the duplicates).
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 14:48 -0700, Andrew Fish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So if we stick to the definition of GetBarAttributes() only 
>>>>>> returning a BAR value, then it's impossible to implement a PCI 
>>>>>> GOP driver by following the spec.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I came to that conclusion too.
>>>>
>>>> :(
>>>>
>>>>>> Now, there's one thing that might work, which would be to exploit 
>>>>>> the "AddressTranslationOffset" field of the ACPI resource 
>>>>>> descriptor.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do you represent a system like this in ACPI? It might be a 
>>>>> good idea to solve it in a similar way.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the details of ACPI, I only have a 
>>>> high level understanding of it. Our platforms have been Open Firmware 
>>>> based for as far as I've been involved with them and lately, we use C 
>>>> -generated flat device-tree along with a custom runtime firmwarealled a 
>>>> OPAL).
>>>>
>>>> At this point I'm not (yet) considering a move to ACPI. I'm doing a proof 
>>>> of concept ppc64 UEFI port to get a feel of the water temperature more 
>>>> than anything else (though I'll be happy to contribute things back once I 
>>>> get the appropriate legalese sorted internally to IBM).
>>>>
>>>>> The PCI IO was designed to not required the 1:1 mapping. The 
>>>>> direct access to the Framebuffer came along later, as was mostly a 
>>>>> fallback for the OS on a safe mode boot kind of thing. I think we 
>>>>> missed passing the frame buffer out on a system that was not 1:1.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Well, it will be needed even on non-1:1 systems, we will have similar 
>>>> requirements of the OS needing an early boot framebuffer etc...
>>>> and I suspect the desire to directly access BARs (at least 
>>>> prefetchable
>>>> ones) from the CPU isn't going away in other areas either.
>>>>
>>>> So maybe we should try to address this. I'm trying to figure out how to 
>>>> join the appropriate working groups etc... so I can participate in the 
>>>> spec side discussion as well (which I'll need to do for other reasons 
>>>> anyway if we are ever going to officially defining the ppc64 ABI in the 
>>>> spec).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Ben.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Fish
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Ben.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
>>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> edk2-devel mailing list
>>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>>
>>
> 

_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Reply via email to