Messages in this thread | | | From | Michal Simek <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v4 5/5] zynq: move static peripheral mappings | Date | Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:52:38 +0000 |
| |
HI Josh and Nick,
look below.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Cartwright [mailto:josh.cartwright@ni.com] > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 3:03 AM > To: Nick Bowler > Cc: arm@kernel.org; Arnd Bergmann; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- > kernel@lists.infradead.org; John Linn; Michal Simek > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] zynq: move static peripheral mappings > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 06:41:08PM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > > On 2012-10-25 16:29 -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:17:01PM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > > > > Did you test this on any real hardware? I can't get the ZC702 to > > > > work with the UART mapped at this address (this ends up being > > > > mapped at 0xFEFFF000), although I can't for the life of me figure > > > > out why the virtual address even matters. Note that for the > > > > ZC702, the physical address of the "main" UART is 0xE0001000. > > Good news is you're not crazy; I was able to duplicate the problem here. > > > If I were to guess, I would guess that, except for when it "Works", > > the really really early printk stuff isn't actually hitting the uart > > at all. The "Fails" case would then be due to the stray writes > > crashing the board, and the "Truncated" case due to the stray writes > > being (ostensibly) benign. > > If I'm not mistaken, this hypothesis is predicated on the early bootup code > establishing a (linear?) mapping for addresses > VMALLOC_START; before the > mdesc->map_io() is even handled. That seems odd to me. > > > But I really have no way right now to test this hypothesis, since I > > can't print anything in the failing case. > > Not sure if I'll be able to get anything meaningful out of it yet (I've not > historically had good luck with Xilinx's debugging tools), but I did finally get a > JTAG debugger hooked up to the zc702. I'll see if I can get any useful > information tomorrow.
I have seen the same problem on zc702. I will debug it. Josh: the best will be if you can send v5 for patches 1-3 (1 with small changes in dts - uart) which I will apply to arm-next.
4/5 should go out of zynq subtree, it means directly to arm-soc or via Russel's tree.
5/5 + Nick patch should be tested.
Thanks, Michal
| |