On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 10:39:14AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 10:36:43AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 10:51 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 02-05-15 15:21, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 20:39 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > >> Linux-4.0 as shipped has a bug causing it to not boot if the end of > > > >> memory > > > >> is not aligned to a multiple of 2 MiB. For details see the linux-arm > > > >> mailing list post titled: > > > >> "Memory size unaligned to section boundary" > > > >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg413811.html > > > >> > > > >> This is something which specifically hits the sunxi display driver > > > >> because > > > >> we carve out the exact needed framebuffer size at the top of mem, this > > > >> commit works around this issue by aligning the carve out. > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I don't like this, we shouldn't be working around Linux bugs > > > > in the firmware, especially when both are Free software. Lets just fix > > > > Linux and get the fix into the appropriate stable trees and in the > > > > meantime tell people to avoid this buggy kernel. > > > > > > > > The problem with this sort of thing is that it is very hard to get rid > > > > of these workarounds, even once the underlying issue is fixed and we no > > > > longer care about the versions with the bug OS authors (including > > > > non-Linux OSes) can inadvertently come to rely on the quirky behaviour, > > > > (i.e. the work around masks other bugs). Hence we end up in a > > > > quirks-race as everyone works around the other parties last workaround. > > > > > > > > If there is to be a workaround instead of a fix then it should be for > > > > Linux to align memory to 2MB boundaries if that is what it requires. > > > > > > I can understand where you're coming from, the problem is that despite > > > various mails to the arm kernel mailing list no one from the upstream > > > kernel seems to be looking into this, > > > > Mark, do you think you could find some cycles (not necessarily your own) > > to look at this, or perhaps you know the appropriate maintainers to > > ping? > > I'll have another look and see if I can come up with a kernel patch. > Perhaps proposing something (even if slightly wrong) will provoke people > to respond.
For the benefit of anyone not on the Linux ARM kernel list there's now a patch addressing the issue [1]. Mark. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-May/342210.html _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
