[coreboot] Re: Extended IvyBridge CPU configuration

2020-06-17 Thread Evgeny Zinoviev via coreboot

Hi!

Thank you for the report.

If you're still on it, can you try the latest update? There was 
seemingly incorrect reset sequence after setting the HT disable bit. I'm 
not sure if it was the reason of problems, but would be good to test again.


On 6/16/20 12:31 PM, Lars Hochstetter wrote:
Sorry for the long silence - I finally found some time to test the HT 
patch.


I used coreboot v4.11 as a basis since at this point in time the patch 
produced merge conflicts with newer commits.


I used memtest86+ v5.01 (forced SMP, RAM: 16GB @ 1600MHz, CPU: Intel 
i7-3840QM) as mentioned in my last mail. When HT is enabled memtest86+ 
runs just fine.


When I disable HT it gets reproducibly stuck at test #7 (block move), 
at 4096M-6144M, with cores 0-2 working, core 3 just switched to "W".


I'll test some other workloads which were problematic in the past 
(compiling coreboot, watching videos using Firefox).


Shall I provide my .config or any other information?

Regards

lhochstetter

On 11/02/2020 15:23, Lars Hochstetter wrote:
I managed to find some time to run memtest86+ v5.01 as a SeaBIOS 
payload [1].


As it turns out the RAM went bad - I made sure to check with another 
pair of sticks. I'll replace the RAM and retry the HT patch when my 
free time allows for it.


Sorry for creating so much noise over something so simple.

Regards

lhochstetter


[1] 
https://mail.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2018-November/087713.html


On 2/8/20 4:23 PM, Lars Hochstetter wrote:
Unfortunately I'll be rather busy until mid April this year - here 
is my plan for the time being:


I'll reinstall Linux Mint Cinnamon, integrate memtest86+ into 
coreboot and run it. I'll report back if it's just bad RAM or 
something else.


Since my T430 was modified a couple times I'd also suggest we try to 
find someone with a more stock T430 to see if your HT patch works. 
The X230 somewhere in this thread worked and I'd argue that it does 
work properly on unmodified Thinkpads.


Sorry for a long reply too. About mrc.bin: no, it's actually 
possible to use mrc blob on Sandy/Ivy, but as I see it's not 
supported across all boards. X220 has support, other boards needs 
patching (or maybe patches are already on gerrit, I'm not sure). It 
shouldn't be hard to get it working, though. 
Can you elaborate on this one? Why does the X220 has support and 
other Sandy/IvyBridge based laptops are not supported? Wasn't one of 
the ideas for coreboot to have a more common code base or am I 
missing something obvious?


Regards

lhochstetter
___
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org



___
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org

___
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org


[coreboot] Re: Supporting blobs with licenses that you agree to on download

2020-06-17 Thread Patrick Georgi via coreboot
Am Mi., 17. Juni 2020 um 02:47 Uhr schrieb Julius Werner <
jwer...@chromium.org>:

> Patrick, any further concerns from your side? If not, would you mind
> creating a new repository for this? I can write the patches to move
> blobs and adjust the Makefiles afterwards.
>
I will create a repo for the qc stuff (let's discuss the details offline),
but also started writing up some clarifications for the blobs repo at
https://review.coreboot.org/c/blobs/+/42476

I think in the long term we might do best by having two licenses on blob
contributions: their regular license agreement and a
download+redistribution license as outlined in the CL. That way the only
requirement on their license would be that coreboot users can use it in
some way (because otherwise, why ship it?)

It may be good to get the various blob owners on board with such a license
so that we can have a single one that allows mere (re)distribution with
little effort on their and our part. Could you ask the QC folks if there's
interest in sorting this out?


Patrick
-- 
Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft:
Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
___
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org


[coreboot] Re: Regarding Intel CPU frequency (Intel Denverton based)

2020-06-17 Thread Sumo
Hi Jay,

Regarding the APIC ID problem, besides updating devicetree.cb with the
correct value do you think something else is required?
I have created a patch to make the APIC ID of devicetree.cb "dynamic" for
Denverton SoC, so it can be updated during runtime, see below:

diff --git a/src/device/device.c b/src/device/device.c
index 02209d9e..8852270b 100644
--- a/src/device/device.c
+++ b/src/device/device.c
@@ -50,6 +50,9 @@
 #include 
 #endif
 #include 
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOC_INTEL_DENVERTON_NS)
+#include 
+#endif

 /** Linked list of ALL devices */
 struct device *all_devices = &dev_root;
@@ -983,6 +986,16 @@ void dev_enumerate(void)
 {
struct device *root;

+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOC_INTEL_DENVERTON_NS)
+   /* Bootstrap processor Local APIC fixup */
+   struct device *t = dev_find_lapic(0xbeef);
+   if (t) {
+   unsigned int apic_id = lapicid();
+   printk(BIOS_INFO, "Denverton-NS BSP Local APIC fixup:
lapic=%u\n", apic_id);
+   t->path.apic.apic_id = apic_id;
+   }
+#endif
+
printk(BIOS_INFO, "Enumerating buses...\n");

root = &dev_root;
diff --git a/src/mainboard/intel/harcuvar/devicetree.cb
b/src/mainboard/intel/harcuvar/devicetree.cb
index 2e463c09..18654d42 100644
--- a/src/mainboard/intel/harcuvar/devicetree.cb
+++ b/src/mainboard/intel/harcuvar/devicetree.cb
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ chip soc/intel/denverton_ns
register "ipc3" = "0x" # IPC3

device cpu_cluster 0 on
-   device lapic 4 on end
+   device lapic 0xbeef on end # NOTE: correct Local APIC ID is
set in in dev_enumerate()
end

device domain 0 on

Thanks,
Sumo

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:50 PM Jay Talbott <
jaytalb...@sysproconsulting.com> wrote:

> Nitin,
>
> We have encountered both of these issues and have corrected them in our own
> code base for a particular client. We are not in a position to upstream our
> changes, but I can tell you the source of each problem.
>
> 1. CPU frequency: For Denverton SKUs that do NOT support turbo mode (like
> the one you are using), the code does not properly enable speedstep. The
> code needs to be modified to correctly enable speedstep in the case of a
> SKU
> that does not support turbo mode.
>
> 2. Linux log: For Denverton SKUs with less than 16 cores, processor 0 is
> not
> guaranteed  to have an APIC ID of 0 (as specified in devicetree). If you
> know the APIC ID of processor 0 and change devicetree to match, the problem
> you are seeing will go away. However, that's not a generalized solution, as
> the APIC ID can be different from SKU to SKU and, I believe, even between
> different parts of the same SKU (other than 16-core SKUs). So the code
> needs
> to be modified to use the actual APIC ID of processor 0 instead of the
> fixed
> value specified in devicetree.
>
> The original code developed by Intel was tested using a Harcuvar CRB with a
> 16-core SKU that supports turbo mode, and that's why neither of these
> issues
> were discovered in the original implementation.
>
> Without actually looking at the code, I believe both of these can be fixed
> in src/soc/intel/denverton_ns/cpu.c.
>
> - Jay
>
> Jay Talbott
> Principal Consulting Engineer
> SysPro Consulting, LLC
> 3057 E. Muirfield St.
> Gilbert, AZ 85298
> (480) 704-8045
> (480) 445-9895 (FAX)
> jaytalb...@sysproconsulting.com
> http://www.sysproconsulting.com
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: nitin.ramesh.si...@gmail.com [mailto:nitin.ramesh.si...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 5:35 AM
> > To: coreboot@coreboot.org
> > Subject: [coreboot] Re: Regarding Intel CPU frequency (Intel Denverton
> > based)
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > As far as cpu init is concerned, I haven't modified the cpu
> initialization
> > sequence for the given board. The code is  located under following sub-
> > folder "src/soc/intel/denverton_ns/cpu.c".
> >
> > The given CPU (CPU C3558)  has 4 cores, and I am noticing the following
> logs
> > while booting up,
> > which I am trying to debug in parallel by inserting some delays.
> >
> > The wakeup fails for cpu (core) 1, but it continues and passes for 2,3,4.
> > So at the end, cores are getting recognized as CPU 0,2,3,4 respectively.
> >
> > There are few records available for the same sort of cases:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0bc26e9524533c38fdbdc95eed2b1448@teksavv
> > y.com/T/
> >
> >
> > "   1.620879] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> > [1.624592]  node  #0, CPUs:  #1
> > [   11.624587] smpboot: do_boot_cpu failed(-1) to wakeup CPU#1
> > [   11.632919]  #2 #3 #4
> > [   11.636707] smp: Brought up 1 node, 4 CPUs
> > [   11.640585] smpboot: Max logical packages: 2
> > [   11.644585] 
> > [   11.644587] | NMI testsuite:
> > [   11.644588] 
> > [   11.644590]   remote IPI:  ok  |
> > [   11.644623]local IPI:  ok  |
> > [   11.644642] 
> > [   11.644644] Good, all   2 testcases passed! |
> >