Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] Re: Regression with floppy drive controller
Hi, > > Is the PIT not working for some reason in the original setup? (Any > > time I attempt to run with "-M isapc" I just get an "Unable to unlock > > ram - bridge not found" error.) > > Yep, that should be no problem, with isapc the ram is not locked in > the first place. Oh, and you need a config small enough to fit into 128k, 256k roms don't work for isapc. When you turn off all PCI drivers this should be easy ;) cheers, Gerd
Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] Re: Regression with floppy drive controller
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:31:48AM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 08:42:08AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > Using the default QEMU config, we build SeaBIOS to use the TSC timer: > > > > > > builds/seabios-128k/.config:CONFIG_TSC_TIMER=y > > > builds/seabios-256k/.config:CONFIG_TSC_TIMER=y > > > > > Do we need a cpu with TSC support to run SeaBIOS? > > > > Hmm. seabios uses pmtimer if available. isapc has no pmtimer though, > > so it uses TSC instead. > > But, SeaBIOS should have automatically detected no TSC and then fallen > back to the PIT. And the check does work correctly with "-cpu 486" in > my tests. > > Is the PIT not working for some reason in the original setup? (Any > time I attempt to run with "-M isapc" I just get an "Unable to unlock > ram - bridge not found" error.) Yep, that should be no problem, with isapc the ram is not locked in the first place. > The PIT seems to work okay in my > setup. Using the floppy image from https://winworldpc.com/download/49c380c2-a9c3-af25-c389-11c3a6e28094 qemu-system-x86_64 -cpu 486 -M isapc -fda win98se.raw => fails qemu-system-x86_64 -cpu 486,+tsc -M isapc -fda win98se.raw=> works cheers, Gerd
Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] Re: Regression with floppy drive controller
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 08:42:08AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > Using the default QEMU config, we build SeaBIOS to use the TSC timer: > > > > builds/seabios-128k/.config:CONFIG_TSC_TIMER=y > > builds/seabios-256k/.config:CONFIG_TSC_TIMER=y > > > Do we need a cpu with TSC support to run SeaBIOS? > > Hmm. seabios uses pmtimer if available. isapc has no pmtimer though, > so it uses TSC instead. But, SeaBIOS should have automatically detected no TSC and then fallen back to the PIT. And the check does work correctly with "-cpu 486" in my tests. Is the PIT not working for some reason in the original setup? (Any time I attempt to run with "-M isapc" I just get an "Unable to unlock ram - bridge not found" error.) The PIT seems to work okay in my setup. -Kevin
Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] Re: Regression with floppy drive controller
[Sorry seabios@ list for the noise!] On 8/20/19 4:54 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 8/20/19 4:36 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> * Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (phi...@redhat.com) wrote: >>> On 8/20/19 3:38 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: On 8/20/19 3:12 PM, John Snow wrote: > On 8/20/19 6:25 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> [cross posting QEMU & SeaBIOS] >> >> Hello, >> >> I'v been looking at a QEMU bug report [1] which bisection resulted in a >> SeaBIOS commit: >> >> 4a6dbcea3e412fe12effa2f812f50dd7eae90955 is the first bad commit >> commit 4a6dbcea3e412fe12effa2f812f50dd7eae90955 >> Author: Nikolay Nikolov >> Date: Sun Feb 4 17:27:01 2018 +0200 >> >> floppy: Use timer_check() in floppy_wait_irq() >> >> Use timer_check() instead of using floppy_motor_counter in BDA for >> the >> timeout check in floppy_wait_irq(). >> >> The problem with using floppy_motor_counter was that, after it >> reaches >> 0, it immediately stops the floppy motors, which is not what is >> supposed to happen on real hardware. Instead, after a timeout (like >> in >> the end of every floppy operation, regardless of the result - >> success, >> timeout or error), the floppy motors must be kept spinning for >> additional 2 seconds (the FLOPPY_MOTOR_TICKS). So, now the >> floppy_motor_counter is initialized to 255 (the max value) in the >> beginning of the floppy operation. For IRQ timeouts, a different >> timeout is used, specified by the new FLOPPY_IRQ_TIMEOUT constant >> (currently set to 5 seconds - a fairly conservative value, but should >> work reliably on most floppies). >> >> After the floppy operation, floppy_drive_pio() resets the >> floppy_motor_counter to 2 seconds (FLOPPY_MOTOR_TICKS). >> >> This is also consistent with what other PC BIOSes do. >> >> >> This commit improve behavior with real hardware, so maybe QEMU is not >> modelling something or modelling it incorrectly? > [...] >>> Looking at the fdc timer I noticed it use a static '50 ns' magic value. >> >> That's not 50ns >> >>> Increasing this value allows the floppy image to boot again, using this >>> snippet: >>> >>> -- >8 -- >>> diff --git a/hw/block/fdc.c b/hw/block/fdc.c >>> index 9b24cb9b85..5fc54073fd 100644 >>> --- a/hw/block/fdc.c >>> +++ b/hw/block/fdc.c >>> @@ -2134,7 +2134,7 @@ static void fdctrl_handle_readid(FDCtrl *fdctrl, >>> int direction) >>> >>> cur_drv->head = (fdctrl->fifo[1] >> 2) & 1; >>> timer_mod(fdctrl->result_timer, qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) + >>> - (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 50)); >> >> That's 1/50th of a second in ns. > > Just noticed that too, so we have here 20ms. > >>> + (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 5000)); >> >> I'm not too sure about readid; but assuming we're rotating at 360rpm, >> that's 6 revolutions/second, and 18 sectors/track = 108 sectors/second >> (half of that for a double density disk). >> >> So, the wait for a sector to spin around and read feels like it should >> be in the region of 1/108 of a second + some latency - so 1/50th of a >> second would seem to be in the ballpark or being right, where as 1/5000 >> of a second is way too fast for a poor old floppy. > > The first command sent is READ_ID. > > Reading the Intel 82077AA datasheet: > > The READ ID command is used to find the present > position of the recording heads. The 82077AA > stores the values from the first ID Field it is able to > read into its registers. If the 82077AA does not find > an ID Address Mark on the diskette after the second > occurrence of a pulse on the IDX pin, it then sets the > IC code in Status Register 0 to ‘‘01’’ (Abnormal ter- > mination), sets the MA bit in Status Register 1 to > ‘’1’’, and terminates the command. > > Then later the SPECIFICATIONS table: > > nRD/nWR Pulse Width: min 90ns > INDEX Pulse Width: min 5 'Internal Clock Period' > > The nominal values for the 'internal clock period' for the various > data rates are: > > 1 Mbps: 3 * osc period = 125ns > 500 Kbps: 6 * osc period = 250ns > 300 Kbps: 10 * osc period = 420ns > 250 Kbps: 12 * osc period = 500ns > > IIUC the model we have DATARATE SELECT REGISTER (DSR) = 0 > > So DRATESEL=0 => datarate = 500 Kbps > > So we should wait at least 250ns. > > Trying the following snippet it also works: > > -- >8 -- > @@ -2133,8 +2133,8 @@ static void fdctrl_handle_readid(FDCtrl *fdctrl, > int direction) > FDrive *cur_drv = get_cur_drv(fdctrl); > > cur_drv->head = (fdctrl->fifo[1] >> 2) & 1; > -timer_mod(fdctrl->result_timer, qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) + > - (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 50)); > +timer_mod(fdctrl->result_timer, qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) > ++
Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] Re: Regression with floppy drive controller
* Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (phi...@redhat.com) wrote: > On 8/20/19 4:36 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (phi...@redhat.com) wrote: > >> On 8/20/19 3:38 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >>> On 8/20/19 3:12 PM, John Snow wrote: > On 8/20/19 6:25 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > [cross posting QEMU & SeaBIOS] > > > > Hello, > > > > I'v been looking at a QEMU bug report [1] which bisection resulted in a > > SeaBIOS commit: > > > > 4a6dbcea3e412fe12effa2f812f50dd7eae90955 is the first bad commit > > commit 4a6dbcea3e412fe12effa2f812f50dd7eae90955 > > Author: Nikolay Nikolov > > Date: Sun Feb 4 17:27:01 2018 +0200 > > > > floppy: Use timer_check() in floppy_wait_irq() > > > > Use timer_check() instead of using floppy_motor_counter in BDA for > > the > > timeout check in floppy_wait_irq(). > > > > The problem with using floppy_motor_counter was that, after it > > reaches > > 0, it immediately stops the floppy motors, which is not what is > > supposed to happen on real hardware. Instead, after a timeout (like > > in > > the end of every floppy operation, regardless of the result - > > success, > > timeout or error), the floppy motors must be kept spinning for > > additional 2 seconds (the FLOPPY_MOTOR_TICKS). So, now the > > floppy_motor_counter is initialized to 255 (the max value) in the > > beginning of the floppy operation. For IRQ timeouts, a different > > timeout is used, specified by the new FLOPPY_IRQ_TIMEOUT constant > > (currently set to 5 seconds - a fairly conservative value, but > > should > > work reliably on most floppies). > > > > After the floppy operation, floppy_drive_pio() resets the > > floppy_motor_counter to 2 seconds (FLOPPY_MOTOR_TICKS). > > > > This is also consistent with what other PC BIOSes do. > > > > > > This commit improve behavior with real hardware, so maybe QEMU is not > > modelling something or modelling it incorrectly? > [...] > >> Looking at the fdc timer I noticed it use a static '50 ns' magic value. > > > > That's not 50ns > > > >> Increasing this value allows the floppy image to boot again, using this > >> snippet: > >> > >> -- >8 -- > >> diff --git a/hw/block/fdc.c b/hw/block/fdc.c > >> index 9b24cb9b85..5fc54073fd 100644 > >> --- a/hw/block/fdc.c > >> +++ b/hw/block/fdc.c > >> @@ -2134,7 +2134,7 @@ static void fdctrl_handle_readid(FDCtrl *fdctrl, > >> int direction) > >> > >> cur_drv->head = (fdctrl->fifo[1] >> 2) & 1; > >> timer_mod(fdctrl->result_timer, qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) > >> + > >> - (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 50)); > > > > That's 1/50th of a second in ns. > > Just noticed that too, so we have here 20ms. > > >> + (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 5000)); > > > > I'm not too sure about readid; but assuming we're rotating at 360rpm, > > that's 6 revolutions/second, and 18 sectors/track = 108 sectors/second > > (half of that for a double density disk). > > > > So, the wait for a sector to spin around and read feels like it should > > be in the region of 1/108 of a second + some latency - so 1/50th of a > > second would seem to be in the ballpark or being right, where as 1/5000 > > of a second is way too fast for a poor old floppy. > > The first command sent is READ_ID. > > Reading the Intel 82077AA datasheet: > > The READ ID command is used to find the present > position of the recording heads. The 82077AA > stores the values from the first ID Field it is able to > read into its registers. If the 82077AA does not find > an ID Address Mark on the diskette after the second > occurrence of a pulse on the IDX pin, it then sets the > IC code in Status Register 0 to ‘‘01’’ (Abnormal ter- > mination), sets the MA bit in Status Register 1 to > ‘’1’’, and terminates the command. > > Then later the SPECIFICATIONS table: > > nRD/nWR Pulse Width: min 90ns > INDEX Pulse Width: min 5 'Internal Clock Period' Note that's the pulse width, not the gap between the idx pulses. My understanding is that an index pulse is once per rotation; ie. every 1/60th of a second. The failure after 2 IDX pin pulses makes sense, that's saying if you've not found a sector after spinning the disk twice then you fail. So, your time to deliver a good result to a readid shoukd be the rotational time for 1 or 2 sectors, where as the time to fail should be the rotational time for about 2 whole rotations (ie 1/30 of a second). Dave > The nominal values for the 'internal clock period' for the various > data rates are: > > 1 Mbps: 3 * osc period = 125ns > 500 Kbps: 6 * osc period = 250ns > 300 Kbps: 10 * osc period = 420ns > 250 Kbps: 12 * osc period = 500ns > > IIUC the model we have DATARATE SELECT REGISTER (DSR) = 0 > > So
Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] Re: Regression with floppy drive controller
On 8/20/19 4:36 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (phi...@redhat.com) wrote: >> On 8/20/19 3:38 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 8/20/19 3:12 PM, John Snow wrote: On 8/20/19 6:25 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > [cross posting QEMU & SeaBIOS] > > Hello, > > I'v been looking at a QEMU bug report [1] which bisection resulted in a > SeaBIOS commit: > > 4a6dbcea3e412fe12effa2f812f50dd7eae90955 is the first bad commit > commit 4a6dbcea3e412fe12effa2f812f50dd7eae90955 > Author: Nikolay Nikolov > Date: Sun Feb 4 17:27:01 2018 +0200 > > floppy: Use timer_check() in floppy_wait_irq() > > Use timer_check() instead of using floppy_motor_counter in BDA for the > timeout check in floppy_wait_irq(). > > The problem with using floppy_motor_counter was that, after it reaches > 0, it immediately stops the floppy motors, which is not what is > supposed to happen on real hardware. Instead, after a timeout (like in > the end of every floppy operation, regardless of the result - success, > timeout or error), the floppy motors must be kept spinning for > additional 2 seconds (the FLOPPY_MOTOR_TICKS). So, now the > floppy_motor_counter is initialized to 255 (the max value) in the > beginning of the floppy operation. For IRQ timeouts, a different > timeout is used, specified by the new FLOPPY_IRQ_TIMEOUT constant > (currently set to 5 seconds - a fairly conservative value, but should > work reliably on most floppies). > > After the floppy operation, floppy_drive_pio() resets the > floppy_motor_counter to 2 seconds (FLOPPY_MOTOR_TICKS). > > This is also consistent with what other PC BIOSes do. > > > This commit improve behavior with real hardware, so maybe QEMU is not > modelling something or modelling it incorrectly? [...] >> Looking at the fdc timer I noticed it use a static '50 ns' magic value. > > That's not 50ns > >> Increasing this value allows the floppy image to boot again, using this >> snippet: >> >> -- >8 -- >> diff --git a/hw/block/fdc.c b/hw/block/fdc.c >> index 9b24cb9b85..5fc54073fd 100644 >> --- a/hw/block/fdc.c >> +++ b/hw/block/fdc.c >> @@ -2134,7 +2134,7 @@ static void fdctrl_handle_readid(FDCtrl *fdctrl, >> int direction) >> >> cur_drv->head = (fdctrl->fifo[1] >> 2) & 1; >> timer_mod(fdctrl->result_timer, qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) + >> - (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 50)); > > That's 1/50th of a second in ns. Just noticed that too, so we have here 20ms. >> + (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 5000)); > > I'm not too sure about readid; but assuming we're rotating at 360rpm, > that's 6 revolutions/second, and 18 sectors/track = 108 sectors/second > (half of that for a double density disk). > > So, the wait for a sector to spin around and read feels like it should > be in the region of 1/108 of a second + some latency - so 1/50th of a > second would seem to be in the ballpark or being right, where as 1/5000 > of a second is way too fast for a poor old floppy. The first command sent is READ_ID. Reading the Intel 82077AA datasheet: The READ ID command is used to find the present position of the recording heads. The 82077AA stores the values from the first ID Field it is able to read into its registers. If the 82077AA does not find an ID Address Mark on the diskette after the second occurrence of a pulse on the IDX pin, it then sets the IC code in Status Register 0 to ‘‘01’’ (Abnormal ter- mination), sets the MA bit in Status Register 1 to ‘’1’’, and terminates the command. Then later the SPECIFICATIONS table: nRD/nWR Pulse Width: min 90ns INDEX Pulse Width: min 5 'Internal Clock Period' The nominal values for the 'internal clock period' for the various data rates are: 1 Mbps: 3 * osc period = 125ns 500 Kbps: 6 * osc period = 250ns 300 Kbps: 10 * osc period = 420ns 250 Kbps: 12 * osc period = 500ns IIUC the model we have DATARATE SELECT REGISTER (DSR) = 0 So DRATESEL=0 => datarate = 500 Kbps So we should wait at least 250ns. Trying the following snippet it also works: -- >8 -- @@ -2133,8 +2133,8 @@ static void fdctrl_handle_readid(FDCtrl *fdctrl, int direction) FDrive *cur_drv = get_cur_drv(fdctrl); cur_drv->head = (fdctrl->fifo[1] >> 2) & 1; -timer_mod(fdctrl->result_timer, qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) + - (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 50)); +timer_mod(fdctrl->result_timer, qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) ++ 250); } --- Note this is not the spining-up delay on reset: Before data can be transferred to or from the disk- ette, the disk drive motor must be brought up to speed. For most 3(/2 × disk drives, the spin-up time is 300 ms, while the 5(/4 × drive usually requires about 500 ms
Re: [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS] Re: Regression with floppy drive controller
* Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (phi...@redhat.com) wrote: > On 8/20/19 3:38 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > On 8/20/19 3:12 PM, John Snow wrote: > >> On 8/20/19 6:25 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >>> [cross posting QEMU & SeaBIOS] > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I'v been looking at a QEMU bug report [1] which bisection resulted in a > >>> SeaBIOS commit: > >>> > >>> 4a6dbcea3e412fe12effa2f812f50dd7eae90955 is the first bad commit > >>> commit 4a6dbcea3e412fe12effa2f812f50dd7eae90955 > >>> Author: Nikolay Nikolov > >>> Date: Sun Feb 4 17:27:01 2018 +0200 > >>> > >>> floppy: Use timer_check() in floppy_wait_irq() > >>> > >>> Use timer_check() instead of using floppy_motor_counter in BDA for the > >>> timeout check in floppy_wait_irq(). > >>> > >>> The problem with using floppy_motor_counter was that, after it reaches > >>> 0, it immediately stops the floppy motors, which is not what is > >>> supposed to happen on real hardware. Instead, after a timeout (like in > >>> the end of every floppy operation, regardless of the result - success, > >>> timeout or error), the floppy motors must be kept spinning for > >>> additional 2 seconds (the FLOPPY_MOTOR_TICKS). So, now the > >>> floppy_motor_counter is initialized to 255 (the max value) in the > >>> beginning of the floppy operation. For IRQ timeouts, a different > >>> timeout is used, specified by the new FLOPPY_IRQ_TIMEOUT constant > >>> (currently set to 5 seconds - a fairly conservative value, but should > >>> work reliably on most floppies). > >>> > >>> After the floppy operation, floppy_drive_pio() resets the > >>> floppy_motor_counter to 2 seconds (FLOPPY_MOTOR_TICKS). > >>> > >>> This is also consistent with what other PC BIOSes do. > >>> > >>> > >>> This commit improve behavior with real hardware, so maybe QEMU is not > >>> modelling something or modelling it incorrectly? > > [...] > >> > >> Well, that's unfortunate. > >> > >> What version of QEMU shipped the SeaBIOS that caused the regression? > > > > See https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1840719/comments/3 > > > > QEMU commit 0b8f74488e, slighly before QEMU v3.1.0 > > (previous tag is v3.0.0). > > > > But you can use v4.1.0 too, simply change the SeaBIOS bios.bin, i.e.: > > > > qemu$ git checkout v4.1.0 > > > > qemu$ (cd roms/seabios && git checkout 4a6dbcea3e4~) && \ > > make -C roms bios > > > > Now pc-bios/bios.bin is built using the last commit working, > > > > qemu$ (cd roms/seabios && git checkout 4a6dbcea3e4) && \ > > make -C roms bios > > > > And you can reproduce the error. > > Looking at the fdc timer I noticed it use a static '50 ns' magic value. That's not 50ns > Increasing this value allows the floppy image to boot again, using this > snippet: > > -- >8 -- > diff --git a/hw/block/fdc.c b/hw/block/fdc.c > index 9b24cb9b85..5fc54073fd 100644 > --- a/hw/block/fdc.c > +++ b/hw/block/fdc.c > @@ -2134,7 +2134,7 @@ static void fdctrl_handle_readid(FDCtrl *fdctrl, > int direction) > > cur_drv->head = (fdctrl->fifo[1] >> 2) & 1; > timer_mod(fdctrl->result_timer, qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL) + > - (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 50)); That's 1/50th of a second in ns. > + (NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND / 5000)); I'm not too sure about readid; but assuming we're rotating at 360rpm, that's 6 revolutions/second, and 18 sectors/track = 108 sectors/second (half of that for a double density disk). So, the wait for a sector to spin around and read feels like it should be in the region of 1/108 of a second + some latency - so 1/50th of a second would seem to be in the ballpark or being right, where as 1/5000 of a second is way too fast for a poor old floppy. Dave > } > > static void fdctrl_handle_format_track(FDCtrl *fdctrl, int direction) > --- > > Any idea what is the correct value to use here? > > Regards, > > Phil. > ___ > SeaBIOS mailing list -- seab...@seabios.org > To unsubscribe send an email to seabios-le...@seabios.org -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
