Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:07:30 +0300 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: "x86/mm: Introduce the 'no5lvl' kernel parameter" broke SETUP_DTB? |
| |
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 05:59:07PM +0000, Alistair Strachan wrote: > Hi Kirill, > > I noticed that booting 4.19 in qemu while injecting a FDT using the > "-dtb /path/to/blob" feature might have been broken by your change > 372fddf70904 ("x86/mm: Introduce the 'no5lvl' kernel parameter"). > > This manifests either as FDT corruption, which causes the setup code > to fail to unpack it (i.e. corruption of the device-tree structure), > or simply bad node data. If I make the below change, the problem goes > away: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.c > b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.c > index 8c5107545251..bfe5aca71254 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.c > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.c > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ struct paging_config paging_prepare(void *rmode) > unsigned long bios_start, ebda_start; > > /* Initialize boot_params. Required for cmdline_find_option_bool(). */ > - boot_params = rmode; > + //boot_params = rmode; > > /* > * Check if LA57 is desired and supported. > > This can be reproduced with the system-root.dtb file in > https://android.googlesource.com/device/google/cuttlefish/+archive/master.tar.gz > using "qemu -dtb system-root.dtb -kernel /path/to/bzImage -drive > file=root.ext4" on x86_64_defconfig with CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST enabled. > > If the FDT is unpacked successfully, the > /proc/device-tree/firmware/android/compatible file will exist, and > contain the string "android,firmware" instead of junk. > > I'm still looking into the root cause for this, but I just wanted to > let you know.
[ Sorry for late reply. I was on vacation. ]
I failed to reproduce the issue with my setup. I can see the string "android,firmware" and all tests seems pass:
[ 2.796657] ### dt-test ### start of unittest - you will see error messages [ 2.798680] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a: could not get #phandle-cells-missing for /testcase-dat1 [ 2.799038] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a: could not get #phandle-cells-missing for /testcase-dat1 [ 2.799384] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a: could not find phandle [ 2.799681] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a: could not find phandle [ 2.799915] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a: arguments longer than property [ 2.800135] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a: arguments longer than property [ 2.801191] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-b: could not get #phandle-missing-cells for /testcase-dat1 [ 2.801606] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-b: could not find phandle [ 2.801842] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-b: arguments longer than property [ 2.811520] ### dt-test ### end of unittest - 162 passed, 0 failed
I've checked 372fddf70904 and v4.19. I don't see a difference comparing to v4.17.
Were you able to track down the issue?
-- Kirill A. Shutemov
| |