Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added rockpro64 #71

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Added rockpro64 #71

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sand7000
Copy link

@sand7000 sand7000 commented Oct 3, 2023

I added the rock pro to Ivan's fork:

https://github.com/Ivan-Velickovic/microkit

and I was able to boot the hello example on the rockpro64 without issues. I have added my changes against the upstream version and it boots but doesn't print hello on the UART. Something is different in Ivan's for that is missing in upstream. I don't want to make a pull request for changes that aren't mine so I am just adding the changes for the rockpro64.

@Ivan-Velickovic
Copy link
Collaborator

Can you show the log of when it's not working? It might help me remember what patch is needed.

@sand7000
Copy link
Author

sand7000 commented Oct 6, 2023

When I added the changes to your fork I saw successful boot like this:

## Starting application at 0x20000000 ...
Bootstrapping kernel
available phys memory regions: 1
  [10000000..f8000000]
reserved virt address space regions: 3
  [ffffff8010000000..ffffff8010243000]
  [ffffff8010243000..ffffff8010247000]
  [ffffff8010247000..ffffff801024e000]
Booting all finished, dropped to user space
MON|INFO: seL4 Core Platform Bootstrap
MON|INFO: bootinfo untyped list matches expected list
MON|INFO: Number of bootstrap invocations: 0x00000009
MON|INFO: Number of system invocations:    0x00000023
MON|INFO: completed bootstrap invocations
MON|INFO: completed system invocations
hello, world

Adding equivalent changes to the upstream yields:

Load address: 0x20000000
Loading: #################################################################
         #################################################################
         ######################################
         8.2 MiB/s
done
Bytes transferred = 2455016 (2575e8 hex)
## Starting application at 0x20000000 ...
Bootstrapping kernel
available phys memory regions: 1
  [10000000..f8000000]
reserved virt address space regions: 2
  [ffffff8010000000..ffffff8010243000]
  [ffffff8010247000..ffffff801024e000]
Booting all finished, dropped to user space
MON|INFO: Microkit Bootstrap
MON|ERROR: cap start mismatch. Expected cap start: 0x0000001a  boot info cap start: 0x0000001b
FAIL: cap start mismatch

I should note though that I saw some flaky behavior on this board today. It was not getting further than:

## Starting application at 0x20000000 ...

for either version for about a dozen attempts. I don't have another board to test.

@Ivan-Velickovic
Copy link
Collaborator

Ivan-Velickovic commented Oct 7, 2023

My guess is that the commit of seL4 doesn't match what's in this README. The fork uses a different version of seL4.

I also notice no UART output from the loader? There should be a bunch of LDR|INFO:... printing at the start.

I'm not sure what's going on with ## Starting application at 0x20000000 ... and then nothing happening. If we know the loader output works and it's still not outputting, something else is going wrong. Either the image hasn't been transferred to U-Boot successfully or the loader is not getting to main for some reason.

@Ivan-Velickovic
Copy link
Collaborator

Hey @sand7000, any luck? Let me know if I can help in any way.

@sand7000
Copy link
Author

Hey @sand7000, any luck? Let me know if I can help in any way.

Sorry for delayed response, I have been traveling and busy on another project. I think you are right. I rebuilt today but I can't test because our board seems to be bad. I bought a new one and will test when I have it.

@@ -55,30 +55,29 @@ class ConfigInfo:

SUPPORTED_BOARDS = (
BoardInfo(
name="tqma8xqp1gb",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems there is some rebase quirk here, this overwrites tqma8xqp1gb instead of just adding rockpro64.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants