Hi Simon, On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 8:40 PM Tony Dinh <mibo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 6:32 PM Tony Dinh <mibo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, Hi Simon, > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:53 PM Tony Dinh <mibo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 8:38 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 14:14, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:56:53PM -0700, Tony Dinh wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 9:22 AM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 12:38:00PM -0700, Tony Dinh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been testing the boostd for a few Marvell boards and > > > > > > > > seeing this > > > > > > > > error on the Thecus N2350 (Marvell Armada 385, dual-core CPU). > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > "bootflow scan scsi" command triggered the "CACHE: Misaligned > > > > > > > > operation at range" error. However, this error did not affect > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > result of the scan, i.e. the bootflow for scsi partition was > > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > correctly, and u-boot is running normally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enabling CONFIG_SYS_DCACHE_OFF got rid of the errors altogether. > > > > > > > > Perhaps this is a case where the DCACHE is not required and > > > > > > > > should be > > > > > > > > turned off? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see the log after the break below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please try -next ? There's at least one SCSI related > > > > > > > cache > > > > > > > alignment fix there that's not in master, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I got the same errors. This time the ranges are > > > > > > different, of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > master: > > > > > > > > > > > > N2350 > bootflow scan scsi > > > > > > CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [3fb99f88, 3fb9a388] > > > > > > CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [3fb99f88, 3fb9a388] > > > > > > CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [3fb99f88, 3fb9a388] > > > > > > ERROR: v7_outer_cache_inval_range - start address is not aligned - > > > > > > 0x3fb99f88 > > > > > > ERROR: v7_outer_cache_inval_range - stop address is not aligned - > > > > > > 0x3fb9a388 > > > > > > > > > > > > next: > > > > > > > > > > > > N2350 > bootflow scan scsi > > > > > > CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [3fb80388, 3fb80788] > > > > > > CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [3fb80388, 3fb80788] > > > > > > CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [3fb80388, 3fb80788] > > > > > > ERROR: v7_outer_cache_inval_range - start address is not aligned - > > > > > > 0x3fb80388 > > > > > > ERROR: v7_outer_cache_inval_range - stop address is not aligned - > > > > > > 0x3fb80788 > > > > > > > > > > Can you debug to where these calls are so we can align these buffers? > > > > > See 02660defdc8a ("scsi: Cache align temporary buffer") for an > > > > > example. > > > > > > > > I wonder if we need to use memalign() when allocating memory to read > > > > things from the media? But I am not sure which file time is being read, > > > > or which bootmeth it is. > > > > > > Looks like we probably need to align the buffer tempbuff. > > > > > > /drivers/scsi/scsi.c > > > static int scsi_detect_dev(struct udevice *dev, int target, int lun, > > > struct blk_desc *dev_desc) > > > { > > > unsigned char perq, modi; > > > lbaint_t capacity; > > > unsigned long blksz; > > > struct scsi_cmd *pccb = (struct scsi_cmd *)&tempccb; > > > int count, err; > > > > > > pccb->target = target; > > > pccb->lun = lun; > > > pccb->pdata = (unsigned char *)&tempbuff; > > > pccb->datalen = 512; > > > > > > If you look at the log I posted previously, this error shows up during > > > "bootflow scan scsi". > > > > > > > Taking the hint from Simon. I turned on log_debug and can see where > > the alignment is not correct. It is fs.c fs_read_alloc(). The > > memalign() call here probably needs to be revised to take into > > consideration ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN somehow? It is 64 for armv7. > > > > diff --git a/fs/fs.c b/fs/fs.c > > index 2b815b1db0..b70281532e 100644 > > --- a/fs/fs.c > > +++ b/fs/fs.c > > @@ -1019,9 +1019,12 @@ int fs_read_alloc(const char *fname, ulong > > size, uint align, void **bufp) > > int ret; > > > > buf = memalign(align, size + 1); > > + log_debug("aligned buf addr 0x%x\n", (unsigned int)buf); > > + > > if (!buf) > > return log_msg_ret("buf", -ENOMEM); > > addr = map_to_sysmem(buf); > > + log_debug("aligned buf sysmem addr 0x%x\n", (unsigned int)addr); > > > > ret = fs_read(fname, addr, 0, size, &bytes_read); > > if (ret) { > > > > Please see the log below after the break. > > Actually, it looks like the fix should be in bootmeth_script.c. > > diff --git a/boot/bootmeth_script.c b/boot/bootmeth_script.c > index 0269e0f9b0..68e77aa50a 100644 > --- a/boot/bootmeth_script.c > +++ b/boot/bootmeth_script.c > @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ static int script_read_bootflow_file(struct udevice > *bootstd, > if (!bflow->subdir) > return log_msg_ret("prefix", -ENOMEM); > > - ret = bootmeth_alloc_file(bflow, 0x10000, 1); > + ret = bootmeth_alloc_file(bflow, 0x10000, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN);
Yes, it is working with the patch above. I don't see the misaligned errors anymore. All the best , Tony