lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] platform/x86: Add Intel Galileo platform specific setup
On 09/01/15 04:46, Darren Hart wrote:
>> + /* Try overlap - IMR_ALIGN */
>> + base = base + size - IMR_ALIGN;
>> + if (imr_add(base, size, IMR_NON_SMM, IMR_NON_SMM, true) == 0)
>> + pr_err(SANITY "overlapped IMR @ (0x%08lx - 0x%08lx)\n",
>> + base, base + size);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>
> I'd rather see this as CONFIG_DEBUG_IMR under Kernel Hacking.
>
> What about this sanity test is galileo specific?

Exactly nothing.

I think it's a fair point to make this
* CONFIG_DEBUG_IMR
* Embedded in the IMR init code

>> + /* BIOS releases 0.7.5 and 0.8.0 do not provide DMI strings */
>> + if (system_id != NULL) {
>> + type = (int)system_id->driver_data;
>> + } else {
>> + pr_info("Galileo Gen1 BIOS version <= 0.8.0\n");
>> + type = GALILEO_QRK_GEN1;
>
> So this will load on any Quark device, Galileo or not, that doesn't provide a
> system_id. Is there any reason we need to support 0.8.0 and earlier firmware?

Every Galileo Gen1 device ships with firmware version 0.7.5. You can do
an EFI capsule update to 0.8.0 which still isn't DMI-enabled - or you
can go and get a firmware greater than 0.9.0 and get DMI strings.

> I'd prefer not to successfully load a driver on the wrong platform because we
> assume the user knows what they are doing :-) This effective converts this from
> a "platform driver" to a "board file" - the bad kind.

That would be a problem if there were any other X1000 boards that don't
provide DMI strings but only Galileo Gen1 out of the box is DMI
deprived, so for that reason I think falling back to assume Gen1 when
you've identified a Quark X1000 is the right thing to do.

Right now the only Quark X1000 devices that real users in the field have
are Galileo boards which either identify with DMI strings (Gen2 and
upgraded Gen1 boards) - or don't identify with DMI strings Gen1 @ 0.7.5
and 0.8.0

Also consider that any new X1000 based systems running Linux will be
based on the latest reference firmware from Intel which provides DMI
identifiers, so Galileo Gen3 if it is in the making will have a DMI
string to identify itself as a Gen3, same with a Gen2 and upgraded Gen1.

The only X1000 based boards without DMI strings are going to be Galileo
Gen1 devices @ firmware version 0.7.5 and 0.8.0, so I don't think we
will end up in a situation of loading the wrong platform code, rather
we'll accommodate the older firmware this way

All that said - there *is* an alternative for 0.7.5 and 0.8.0 firmware
but, I know you won't like it.

Prior to 0.9.0 firmware Galileo boards were identified by

1. Mapping a section of SPI flash
2. Finding a specific header at a know location on SPI flash
3. Extracting a unique platform ID field from that header
4. Examining that platform ID field and loading Galileo specific drivers
if found

So in theory we could go this route if you feel that fallback the
fallback described above isn't robust enough.

I'm OK to add that code in for V2 and we can decide which is the more
desirable way to do it - fallback or extract of platform id from SPI
flash and then finalise at V3

--
BOD


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-09 12:21    [W:0.674 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site