-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 128
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Eagle Stream FSP (0115.D.05) #115
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Preserve the bootloader's paging state. Signed-off-by: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
Tried this with Coreboot head and the FSP header hookup patch. On a previously working board, I got a General Protection fault in Silicon Init:
Going to try setting nothing in the FspsUpd, but I don't think I was setting much (TME never worked, no SGX). CPU is Xeon Max 9480. |
We are seeing the very same issue as @65a on one of our Eagle Stream boards. |
Could you please try with below coreboot change? @pp3345 @65a |
@shuoliu0 Thank you for your hard work on this! EDIT: unrelated debugging information removed |
@shuoliu0 Thanks again for your time! EDIT: Removed mistaken build results with old FSP and new headers. |
Hi @65a , in our default config, NO_FSP_TEMP_RAM_EXIT should not be set. So it should be okay that you just go with NO_FSP_TEMP_RAM_EXIT unset. |
Glad to know! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @niruiyu , LGTM. Tested with https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/80360, pass boot to LinuxBoot.
I didn't realize that deleting the |
Apologies for my mistake, the problem is indeed still present, same issue. The fault is repeated for each CPU thread. Maybe the pdb provides a clue if you have access to it? Or contents of |
As requested, here is without
|
Our used test configs are as below, coreboot baseline - commit c52ffcede36658e7efd2b8d01d92e7e2eaaa12e7 + https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/80360 Can I know yours? P.S. I need to check if the default download git submodules satisfy the requirements above or not, if no, extra fixes are needed. |
I checked the coreboot's 3rdparty already catch up to date - https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/tree/main/3rdparty. Could you please check your environment to see if matched? |
My microcode probably doesn't match, it's a blob from 2022. Can you confirm your 3rdparty/fsp is at |
To be more clear about Fsp.fd: |
My coreboot tree is rebased on top of HEAD at commit |
New upstream (This PR) sha256: 776100021418dba4fb62446e7c420ce2bd161e849fc6d19c9f72b80a6b479e77 -> confirmed |
Could you please update your 3rdparty/microcode and try? |
Trying that now, commit matches yours. May be last flash for today, this board requires a chip clip recover and external ISP on bad flashes, so it's painful. |
I see, thank you for the patience. |
Booting now, NO_FSP_TEMP_RAM_EXIT is not set. If that triggers the null issue, I'll try one with it set as well, since that was getting farther. |
It does trigger the same null without NO_FSP_TEMP_RAM_EXIT, building with it and trying now |
Made an inter
Made a check on the error reports. This is highly possible caused by a non-update-to-date microcode. However, after you update the 3rdparty/intel-microcode repo. Per src/soc/intel/xeon_sp/spr/Makefile.mk, the effective microcode are as below, Could you please confirm this is aligned to your config? |
Sha256 matches for these microcode files. I suspect the null could be a failed allocation, but I get a similar issue in postcar with the working FSP with either vboot or X86_64 mode enabled. NO_EXIT is probably a hack that happens to allow for these allocations to continue. Not sure if that has impact...I may need to try to see if I can get FSP more memory space to rule out a side effect. Still waiting for the next one to finish flashing, it is very slow. Thanks for your patience! |
BTW, we are using configs/builder/config.intel.crb.ac as defconfig, not sure if you are using the same? CONFIG_VENDOR_INTEL=y |
I have very good news! It was the microcode, at least my previous config boots now, sha256 sum of Fsp.fd verified this time :) Really, thanks a lot for your testing. It definitely seems critical that this FSP get paired with the latest microcode, hopefully that helps @pp3345 too. I suspect the null issue is something unrelated, as it occurred before...another bug for another time. Thanks again @shuoliu0! |
Glad to know! |
Indeed we also had an outdated version of the microcode running. Updating fixed the issue for us as well. Everything's fine then with the new FSP from our perspective. Thanks a lot! |
Preserve the bootloader's paging state.