Re: Replicating Linaro Images to more memory cards
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Sudhangathan B S wrote: > [6.605651] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbhid > > [6.617279] usbhid: USB HID core driver > > Gave up waiting for root device. Common problems: > > - Boot args (cat /proc/cmdline) > >- Check rootdelay= (did the system wait long enough?) > >- Check root= (did the system wait for the right device?) > > - Missing modules (cat /proc/modules; ls /dev) > > ALERT! /dev/disk/by-uuid/17fb7403-3757-4533-b783-7be5436d9882 does not > exist. ! > it looks like you are using UUID in the bootargs (root=UUID=xxx) to indicate where the root FS is. You can use a LABEL instead of UUID, root=LABEL=foobar, and make sure that on all your cards the root partition is labelled 'foobar' ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Replicating Linaro Images to more memory cards
I'm using Gumstix Overo-Fire. I need to replicate my systems to deploy and test my setup. Right now I have one uSD memory card which is working fine, but when I copy the whole card using either the `tar cvpf` or dd commands, the image doesn't work on any other memory card. Below is the console message when it hangs. I have tried many memory cards. Looks like Linaro images store the memory card ID and search for them during the boot time, which will obviously fail on a different card. Is there any way I can make my Linaro Image memory card independent so that my replication becomes easy..?? These are the last lines from the console messages during the boot, with the replicated memory card. [6.605651] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbhid [6.617279] usbhid: USB HID core driver Gave up waiting for root device. Common problems: - Boot args (cat /proc/cmdline) - Check rootdelay= (did the system wait long enough?) - Check root= (did the system wait for the right device?) - Missing modules (cat /proc/modules; ls /dev) ALERT! /dev/disk/by-uuid/17fb7403-3757-4533-b783-7be5436d9882 does not exist. ! - Sudhangathan BS Ph:(+91) 9731-905-205 - ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: linaro blocking issue
On 17 February 2012 03:10, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Dechesne, Nicolas wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Amit wrote: >>> >>> gpg: directory `/home/bagggami/.gnupg' created >>> gpg: new configuration file `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' created >>> gpg: WARNING: options in `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' are not yet >>> active during this run >>> gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/secring.gpg' created >>> gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/pubring.gpg' created >>> gpg: requesting key 7BE1F97B from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com >>> gpgkeys: HTTP fetch error 7: couldn't connect to host >>> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. >>> gpg: Total number processed: 0 >>> >>> Can you tell me whats going wrong here. >> >> >> looks like you might be behind a corporate firewall, and 'sudo' is not >> passing the env variables properly. >> >> the reliable way I usually do it is: >> >> $ sudo su - >> $ export http_proxy='XXX' >> $ export https_proxy='XXX' >> $ add-apt-repository ppa:xxx > > You should set the proxy for apt via /etc/apt.conf or /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ > > The line you need is: > > Acquire::HTTP::Proxy "http://.../";; for gpg, which is the problem here, you need to configure it in ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf with a line like keyserver-options http-proxy=http://proxy.example.com:3128/ if there is already a keyserver-options line, you need to add that to it. It may be a good idea to also put it into /root/.gnupg/gpg.conf. -- Martin ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [PATCH][V3] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > What is the status of this patchset ? It is not in Samuel's tree and it is > one month old with no comments. Samuel periodically has a lot to do I think, so I'd just be patient and wait for him to have a look at it. Yours, Linus Walleij ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: Query: Multiple Mappings to Mem and ARMV6+
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:37:02PM +, viresh kumar wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Catalin Marinas > wrote: > > To summarise, if you mix Normal with Device or SO memory, you only get > > the guarantees of the Normal memory (e.g. early write acknowledgement, > > write buffer gathering, speculative accesses), so it's not recommended. > > If you mix Normal Cacheable with Normal Non-cacheable, you need to make > > sure that the cacheable mapping does not have any dirty cache lines that > > could be evicted. Additionally, if you read the buffer through the > > cacheable mapping later, you need to invalidate it first in case cache > > lines have been speculatively fetched. The ARM ARM definition however > > guarantees that accesses through the Non-cacheable mapping does not hit > > any cache lines (brought in via the Cacheable mapping). > > I don't know if i understood correctly the earlier mails over the list, but > with > speculative writes to Normal Cacheable Memory (Low Mem), we can still > enter an undefined state if we have separate kind of mapping as we have in > dma_alloc_*() and low mem. > > Or > > Who is responsible here to take care of cleaning and invalidate cached low > mem mappings in case of speculative writes? The DMA API implementation on ARM takes care of the cache cleaning and invalidating. BTW, I would say cache evictions rather than speculative writes as the latter is something else and ARM processors don't do it (only speculative reads). -- Catalin ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: Query: Multiple Mappings to Mem and ARMV6+
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:29:28PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:22:42PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:15:20PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:41:02PM +, viresh kumar wrote: > > > > Sorry for starting the long old thread again, but i have to start it as > > > > i > > > > was a bit confused. :( > > > > > > > > We know that we can't have multiple mappings with different attributes > > > > to the same physical memory on ARMv6+ machines due to speculative > > > > prefetch. > > > > > > > > So, we have following kind of mappings in kernel now (please correct me > > > > if i am wrong): > > > > - Low Mem: Mapped at boot time to - Normal Cacheable - Bufferable > > > > - ioremap() - blocked on Low Mem, so that we don't create Device type > > > > mapping > > > > to same mem > > > > - dma_alloc_coherent() and others: > > > > - Without DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE selected - gives strongly ordered > > > > mem > > > > (i.e. Non cacheable - Non Bufferable) > > > > - With DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE selected - gives Normal - Non > > > > cacheable - > > > >Bufferable mapping > > > > - Maybe some other too... > > > > > > > > I have a doubt with the last mapping mentioned above. We have two > > > > mappings possibly to the same physical memory, with different > > > > attributes: One is Cacheable and other one is not. > > > > > > > > Is this allowed by ARM? Because the patch in which Russell blocked > > > > ioremap on Low Mem, he clearly mentioned that these attributes are > > > > also important and they should be same. > > > > > > Section A3.5.7 in the latest ARM ARM (revC) clarifies the mismatched > > > > There's a new version? > > Rev C has been available for a while. I thought you got it already: No, if no one tells me when a new version is available, then, unless I waste time regularly polling the website below, I have no way to know. > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0406c/index.html > > It contains the LPAE and virtualisation extensions. > > -- > Catalin ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: Query: Multiple Mappings to Mem and ARMV6+
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:22:42PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:15:20PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:41:02PM +, viresh kumar wrote: > > > Sorry for starting the long old thread again, but i have to start it as i > > > was a bit confused. :( > > > > > > We know that we can't have multiple mappings with different attributes > > > to the same physical memory on ARMv6+ machines due to speculative > > > prefetch. > > > > > > So, we have following kind of mappings in kernel now (please correct me > > > if i am wrong): > > > - Low Mem: Mapped at boot time to - Normal Cacheable - Bufferable > > > - ioremap() - blocked on Low Mem, so that we don't create Device type > > > mapping > > > to same mem > > > - dma_alloc_coherent() and others: > > > - Without DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE selected - gives strongly ordered > > > mem > > > (i.e. Non cacheable - Non Bufferable) > > > - With DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE selected - gives Normal - Non > > > cacheable - > > >Bufferable mapping > > > - Maybe some other too... > > > > > > I have a doubt with the last mapping mentioned above. We have two > > > mappings possibly to the same physical memory, with different > > > attributes: One is Cacheable and other one is not. > > > > > > Is this allowed by ARM? Because the patch in which Russell blocked > > > ioremap on Low Mem, he clearly mentioned that these attributes are > > > also important and they should be same. > > > > Section A3.5.7 in the latest ARM ARM (revC) clarifies the mismatched > > There's a new version? Rev C has been available for a while. I thought you got it already: http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0406c/index.html It contains the LPAE and virtualisation extensions. -- Catalin ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: Query: Multiple Mappings to Mem and ARMV6+
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:15:20PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:41:02PM +, viresh kumar wrote: > > Sorry for starting the long old thread again, but i have to start it as i > > was a bit confused. :( > > > > We know that we can't have multiple mappings with different attributes > > to the same physical memory on ARMv6+ machines due to speculative > > prefetch. > > > > So, we have following kind of mappings in kernel now (please correct me > > if i am wrong): > > - Low Mem: Mapped at boot time to - Normal Cacheable - Bufferable > > - ioremap() - blocked on Low Mem, so that we don't create Device type > > mapping > > to same mem > > - dma_alloc_coherent() and others: > > - Without DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE selected - gives strongly ordered mem > > (i.e. Non cacheable - Non Bufferable) > > - With DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE selected - gives Normal - Non cacheable - > >Bufferable mapping > > - Maybe some other too... > > > > I have a doubt with the last mapping mentioned above. We have two > > mappings possibly to the same physical memory, with different > > attributes: One is Cacheable and other one is not. > > > > Is this allowed by ARM? Because the patch in which Russell blocked > > ioremap on Low Mem, he clearly mentioned that these attributes are > > also important and they should be same. > > Section A3.5.7 in the latest ARM ARM (revC) clarifies the mismatched There's a new version? ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: Query: Multiple Mappings to Mem and ARMV6+
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:41:02PM +, viresh kumar wrote: > Sorry for starting the long old thread again, but i have to start it as i > was a bit confused. :( > > We know that we can't have multiple mappings with different attributes > to the same physical memory on ARMv6+ machines due to speculative > prefetch. > > So, we have following kind of mappings in kernel now (please correct me > if i am wrong): > - Low Mem: Mapped at boot time to - Normal Cacheable - Bufferable > - ioremap() - blocked on Low Mem, so that we don't create Device type mapping > to same mem > - dma_alloc_coherent() and others: > - Without DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE selected - gives strongly ordered mem > (i.e. Non cacheable - Non Bufferable) > - With DMA_MEM_BUFFERABLE selected - gives Normal - Non cacheable - >Bufferable mapping > - Maybe some other too... > > I have a doubt with the last mapping mentioned above. We have two > mappings possibly to the same physical memory, with different > attributes: One is Cacheable and other one is not. > > Is this allowed by ARM? Because the patch in which Russell blocked > ioremap on Low Mem, he clearly mentioned that these attributes are > also important and they should be same. Section A3.5.7 in the latest ARM ARM (revC) clarifies the mismatched memory attributes (more precise compared to the original "unpredictable" statement, though the description there is not an easy read). While changes to the ARM ARM do not apply to already implemented processors, to my knowledge all existing cores comply with the new ARM ARM description. To summarise, if you mix Normal with Device or SO memory, you only get the guarantees of the Normal memory (e.g. early write acknowledgement, write buffer gathering, speculative accesses), so it's not recommended. If you mix Normal Cacheable with Normal Non-cacheable, you need to make sure that the cacheable mapping does not have any dirty cache lines that could be evicted. Additionally, if you read the buffer through the cacheable mapping later, you need to invalidate it first in case cache lines have been speculatively fetched. The ARM ARM definition however guarantees that accesses through the Non-cacheable mapping does not hit any cache lines (brought in via the Cacheable mapping). So regarding your ioremap() lowmem, even if Linux allowed you to do that you wouldn't get the guarantees of the Device memory. -- Catalin ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: linaro blocking issue
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki < zygmunt.kryni...@linaro.org> wrote: > You should set the proxy for apt via /etc/apt.conf or /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ > > The line you need is: > > Acquire::HTTP::Proxy "http://.../";; > this works for apt-get commands, but not for add-apt-repo which is a python script that does not use this config ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: linaro blocking issue
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Dechesne, Nicolas wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Amit wrote: >> >> gpg: directory `/home/bagggami/.gnupg' created >> gpg: new configuration file `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' created >> gpg: WARNING: options in `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' are not yet >> active during this run >> gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/secring.gpg' created >> gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/pubring.gpg' created >> gpg: requesting key 7BE1F97B from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com >> gpgkeys: HTTP fetch error 7: couldn't connect to host >> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. >> gpg: Total number processed: 0 >> >> Can you tell me whats going wrong here. > > > looks like you might be behind a corporate firewall, and 'sudo' is not > passing the env variables properly. > > the reliable way I usually do it is: > > $ sudo su - > $ export http_proxy='XXX' > $ export https_proxy='XXX' > $ add-apt-repository ppa:xxx You should set the proxy for apt via /etc/apt.conf or /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ The line you need is: Acquire::HTTP::Proxy "http://.../";; > > that should work with sudo -E as well, but I didn't try that. > > ___ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: linaro blocking issue
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Amit wrote: > gpg: directory `/home/bagggami/.gnupg' created > gpg: new configuration file `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' created > gpg: WARNING: options in `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' are not yet > active during this run > gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/secring.gpg' created > gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/pubring.gpg' created > gpg: requesting key 7BE1F97B from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com > gpgkeys: HTTP fetch error 7: couldn't connect to host > gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. > gpg: Total number processed: 0 > > Can you tell me whats going wrong here. > looks like you might be behind a corporate firewall, and 'sudo' is not passing the env variables properly. the reliable way I usually do it is: $ sudo su - $ export http_proxy='XXX' $ export https_proxy='XXX' $ add-apt-repository ppa:xxx that should work with sudo -E as well, but I didn't try that. ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: linaro blocking issue
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:02:44PM +0530, Amit wrote: > gpg: directory `/home/bagggami/.gnupg' created > gpg: new configuration file `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' created > gpg: WARNING: options in `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' are not > yet active during this run > gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/secring.gpg' created > gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/pubring.gpg' created > gpg: requesting key 7BE1F97B from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com > gpgkeys: HTTP fetch error 7: couldn't connect to host Looks like you are even having HTTP connection problems -- can you do web requests to http://keyserver.ubuntu.com at all? This is most certainly a network issue on your end. -- Christian Robottom Reis, Engineering VP Brazil (GMT-3) | [+55] 16 9112 6430 | [+1] 612 216 4935 Linaro.org: Open Source Software for ARM SoCs ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: linaro blocking issue
Hi Christian, I tried the alternative command, but I am getting error in that for connecting to the host. The error logs are as follows gpg: directory `/home/bagggami/.gnupg' created gpg: new configuration file `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' created gpg: WARNING: options in `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/gpg.conf' are not yet active during this run gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/secring.gpg' created gpg: keyring `/home/bagggami/.gnupg/pubring.gpg' created gpg: requesting key 7BE1F97B from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com gpgkeys: HTTP fetch error 7: couldn't connect to host gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: Total number processed: 0 Can you tell me whats going wrong here. Regards, Amit Bag On 16/02/12 12:57, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:49:21PM +0530, Amit wrote: I am not able to install any packages related to linaro for example when I tried that below command sudo add-apt-repository ppa:linaro-maintainers/toolchain I am getting error like Error reading https://launchpad.net/api/1.0/~linaro-maintainers/+archive/toolchain: But when I use a direct INTERNET connection without proxy its working fine. The problem you're running into is that add-apt-repository is fetching a GPG key from the Ubuntu keyserver, which is running on port 11371. You can indeed punch a hold in the firewall, but you can also just issue sudo gpg --keyserver hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com:80 --recv-keys 7BE1F97B since this is a one-time operation -- once the key is set up transferring packages is done over regular http. -- ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
