Hi Basil,
Please see my responses inline: On 11 February 2014 13:51, Basil Eljuse <basil.elj...@arm.com> wrote: > A gentle reminder ! > > > > *From:* Basil Eljuse > *Sent:* 09 February 2014 16:06 > *To:* 'Linaro Validation' > *Cc:* Dean Arnold > *Subject:* Query on 5.3 Foundation model support in LAVA > > > > Hi, > > > > We were trying to get the latest published (5.3) foundation models in > LAVA. > > > > Using the reference as > http://git.linaro.org/lava/lava-dispatcher.git/blob/HEAD:/lava_dispatcher/default-config/lava-dispatcher/device-types/rtsm_foundation-armv8.conf > > > > > # The new (2013-10-03) Foundation model install places the simulator binary > at Foundation_v8pkg/models/Linux64_GCC-4.1/Foundation_v8 > > 21<http://git.linaro.org/lava/lava-dispatcher.git/blob/HEAD:/lava_dispatcher/default-config/lava-dispatcher/device-types/rtsm_foundation-armv8.conf#l21># > A symbolic link has been created in our arm_models-2013-10-03.tgz package to > workaround this change for compatibilty sake. If you are getting an error > > 22<http://git.linaro.org/lava/lava-dispatcher.git/blob/HEAD:/lava_dispatcher/default-config/lava-dispatcher/device-types/rtsm_foundation-armv8.conf#l22># > chances are you are running a newer Foundation model and need to adjust this > path. > > 23<http://git.linaro.org/lava/lava-dispatcher.git/blob/HEAD:/lava_dispatcher/default-config/lava-dispatcher/device-types/rtsm_foundation-armv8.conf#l23>simulator_command > = sudo -u www-data /opt/arm/Foundation_v8pkg/Foundation_v8 --image={AXF} > --block-device={IMG} --network=nat > > > > Not quite sure what the comment refers to. However the key point for me is > that rather than using the axf file I was hoping to define the boot options > similar to what we have for the Base models. > This comment refers to the older foundation models: - Older version of the foundation models have binaries in different locations: tyler@i5-vm:~/Downloads/models/Foundation_v8pkg$ ls -al total 24 drwxrwxrwx 5 tyler tyler 4096 Jan 22 16:37 . drwxr-xr-x 7 tyler tyler 4096 Jan 22 16:38 .. drwxrwxrwx 2 tyler tyler 4096 Jan 22 16:35 doc drwxrwxrwx 2 tyler tyler 4096 Jan 22 16:35 examples lrwxrwxrwx 1 tyler tyler 36 Jan 22 16:36 Foundation_v8 -> models/Linux64_GCC-4.1/Foundation_v8 -rwxrwxrwx 1 tyler tyler 80 Nov 8 01:59 Internal_use_only.txt lrwxrwxrwx 1 tyler tyler 39 Jan 22 16:37 libarmctmodel.so -> models/Linux64_GCC-4.1/libarmctmodel.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 tyler tyler 58 Jan 22 16:37 libMAXCOREInitSimulationEngine.so.2 -> models/Linux64_GCC-4.1/libMAXCOREInitSimulationEngine.so.2 drwxrwxrwx 3 tyler tyler 4096 Jan 22 16:35 models So symlinks were created inside the foundation model tar ball package that we deploy into the lab to maintain backward compatibility with the older models. If you don't care about older version of the foundation models, you need to adjust your simulator_command to the proper path for the new model: New model: - simulator_command = sudo -u www-data */opt/arm/Foundation_v8pkg/models/Linux64_GCC-4.1/Foundation_v8*--image={AXF} --block-device={IMG} --network=nat Old model: - simulator_command = sudo -u www-data */opt/arm/Foundation_v8pkg/Foundation_v8*--image={AXF} --block-device={IMG} --network=nat > > > The following is the typical boot options I wanted to use > > > > <path-to>/Foundation_v8 \ > > --cores=4 \ > > --no-secure-memory \ > > --visualization \ > > --gicv3 \ > > --data="<path to bl1.bin>"@0x0 \ > > --data="<path to UEFI binary>"@0x8000000 \ > > > --block-device="<path-to>/vexpress64-openembedded_lamp-armv8_20130927-7.img" > > > > This would let me override the various argument like number of cores / > --gicv3 or -no-gicv3 flag. > https://git.linaro.org/lava/lava-dispatcher.git/blob/HEAD:/lava_dispatcher/default-config/lava-dispatcher/device-types/rtsm_foundation-armv8.conf At Linaro we have only had the need to use the boot_option "cores" as seen above. Feel free to add any options you would like here :) You can add these options in either your device configuration or device-type configuration. > > > My understanding is that foundation models are quite cutdown version of > Base models and hence does not have semihosting capabilitie etc, hence > the uefi and blockdevice path should be relative to that of the foundation > model location. > I believe you are correct here. I have never tried this with a foundation model though. > > > Question:: Can we use the boot options for foundation model the similar > way it is used for base models? Is there an example for the same where we > could cross-reference? > The answer is yes you can, here is an example on the base model: http://community.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/2686/definition Works the same way on the foundation model as it does on the base model. > > > Thanks > > Basil Eljuse... > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. > > ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, > Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 > ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, > Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782 > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-validation mailing list > linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation > > Hopefully that helps some, let me know if you still have any questions! Cheers, -- Tyler Baker Technical Architect, LAVA Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
_______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
