On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:20 PM Christoph Müllner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 07.05.19 16:16, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:11 PM Christoph Müllner > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 07.05.19 15:55, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> On 5/7/19 3:55 PM, Christoph Müllner wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 07.05.19 15:52, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>> On 5/7/19 3:45 PM, Christoph Müllner wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 07.05.19 15:06, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>> On 5/7/19 11:09 AM, Christoph Muellner wrote: > >>>>>>>> If we are using malloc-simple, we get into the problem, that > >>>>>>>> calls to free() won't free any memory. When using bouncebuf > >>>>>>>> in SPL with malloc-simple this means, that every allocated buffer > >>>>>>>> is lost. This can quickly consume the whole heap. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When does such a scenario happen ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> RK3399 with mainline U-Boot and mainline ATF. > >>>>>> We have 0x4000 bytes heap in SPL. > >>>>>> For the SRAM part of ATF we need to allocate 0x2000-0x2200 bytes. > >>>>>> For the PMUSRAM part about the same again. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I tried to increase the heap size to 0x10000, but that seems > >>>>>> to break some unchecked assumptions about the memory layout, > >>>>>> because then SPL resets very early. > >>>>> > >>>>> So what calls this malloc-free pair so often to spend all the simple > >>>>> malloc area ? > >>>> > >>>> The bouncebuf code (bounce_buffer_start(), which does memalign(). > >>>> It is called twice (once for SRAM and once for PMUSRAM) as mentioned > >>>> above. > >>>> > >>>> That's all part of loading the ATF parts (on RK3399 we have normal ATF > >>>> code, > >>>> SRAM code and PMUSRAM code). > >>> > >>> Can you switch to full malloc ? > >> > >> Tested that as well, but that did not work either (again SPL crashes quite > >> early). > >> > >> I think the reason is the following: > >> Full malloc needs the data section to be working for the global variables > >> (besides gd fields). I think that's not possible in very early SPL stages, > >> where the first pages are going to be mapped (and malloc is used for > >> allocating > >> the page table entries). > > > > Exactly. I think you're at least the third person on this list stumbling > > accross this in the last weeks :(
I should have expressed myself clearer. I meant the fact that full malloc cannot be used in early SPL stages :) I bumped into that on socfgpa_a10, too. And I still think it's a rather random limitation that should be overcome. Regards, Simon > > I was "lucky" enough to get bad weather this weekend, so I could debug > each and every ATF loader issue for the SD card boot case. > > The tree I was testing with (on RK3399-Q7/Puma with Haikou) can be found here: > > https://git.theobroma-systems.com/puma-u-boot.git/log/?h=puma-v2019.04-atf _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
