<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Sorry for duplicate or incorrectly formatted messages. I need to setup an e-mail client to just send plain text. . See my replies below:</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:list@c-mauderer.de">Christian Mauderer</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Sunday, January 19, 2020 2:49 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:alan.cudmore@gmail.com">Alan Cudmore</a>; <a href="mailto:christian.mauderer@embedded-brains.de">Christian Mauderer</a>; <a href="mailto:gsnb.gn@gmail.com">gsnb.gn@gmail.com</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:devel@rtems.org">rtems-devel@rtems.org</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: Raspberry Pi test report</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On 19/01/2020 20:42, Alan Cudmore wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>> I tried the latest RTEMS master on my collection of single core RPis and</p><p class=MsoNormal>> they all worked. I used the kernel_address=0x200000 option in the</p><p class=MsoNormal>> config.txt file.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> The BSP did not identify the RPi Model B (26 pin GPIO header) or the RPi</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Model A+ (1.1) since they use the older device ID register format. It's</p><p class=MsoNormal>> probably a simple patch to identify these older models. Is it worth it,</p><p class=MsoNormal>> given that they are not sold anymore?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It's most likely only a wrong output. The memory size should be correct</p><p class=MsoNormal>now. But nonetheless it's a bug and we currently mainly support the 1</p><p class=MsoNormal>and 2. Therefore I would say it's worth a fix. Do you want to add one?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I can work on a fix to identify the older models.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> I also tried some simple tests on the RPi 2 (v 1.1) and they worked.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> However the SMP tests seem to crash on the RPi 2. </p><p class=MsoNormal>> Does anyone know if the RPi 2 SMP works on the latest master? I know it</p><p class=MsoNormal>> has worked in the past.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I didn't test it. Do you have some details?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>I’m just starting to troubleshoot, but I build the raspberrypi2 BSP with –enable-smp.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>A few of the samples like ticker.exe and unlimited.exe work.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>But when I try smp01.exe, I don’t see any output past the model Identification that is printed by the BSP:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>RTEMS RPi 2B 1.1 (1GB) [00a21041]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>I commented out much of the code in smp01/init.c just to see if I could get the “test begin†banner, but did not see anything. (here is where the debugger would help!)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Is the ticker.exe demo built differently than smp01.exe? These are both under the same build with the same configure options.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>I will try to continue my troubleshooting a little later.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> I wouldn't mind dropping the Pi 2 once the Pi 3 is working.. The model</p><p class=MsoNormal>> is being phased out anyway.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Again: Still a lot of boards around. And quite possible that the older</p><p class=MsoNormal>ones that are phased out of some Linux applications are used now for</p><p class=MsoNormal>RTEMS stuff. So I'm not a fan of removing the support.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>That is fine with me. I read that there have been 30 million Raspberry Pis sold so far. I am trying to find a breakdown of that figure by model number.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> It looks like there is progress being made on the RPi 3. The mini uart</p><p class=MsoNormal>> support may also work on the RPi Zero W, since it has the same</p><p class=MsoNormal>> wireless/bluetooth model as the 3. I can try the Pi 3 out whenever it is</p><p class=MsoNormal>> ready.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Thanks for all of the recent RPI updates! </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Please give a special thanks to Niteesh. He does most of the current</p><p class=MsoNormal>raspberry work. And thank you for the repeated testing.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Absolutely! Niteesh’s work to allow RTEMS to work on the Raspberry Pi 3 is very much appreciated!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white;font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial;text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Alan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best regards</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Christian</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> Alan</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:26 AM Alan Cudmore <alan.cudmore@gmail.com</p><p class=MsoNormal>> <mailto:alan.cudmore@gmail.com>> wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>    The Debian Linux variant for the Raspberry Pi (Raspbian) is still 32</p><p class=MsoNormal>>    bit for both the Pi 3 and 4, so I would think 32 bit ports would run</p><p class=MsoNormal>>    on both.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>    The Raspberry Pi 4 has a Quad Core A72, 1 to 4 Gigabytes of LPDDR4</p><p class=MsoNormal>>    SDRAM, Gigabit ethernet, USB 3, Wi-fi and bluetooth. I have not</p><p class=MsoNormal>>    looked into it enough to see what UARTs it uses.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>    On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:18 AM Christian Mauderer</p><p class=MsoNormal>>    <christian.mauderer@embedded-brains.de</p><p class=MsoNormal>>    <mailto:christian.mauderer@embedded-brains.de>> wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        On 08/01/2020 00:24, Joel Sherrill wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 12:42 PM Christian Mauderer</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        <list@c-mauderer.de <mailto:list@c-mauderer.de></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > <mailto:list@c-mauderer.de <mailto:list@c-mauderer.de>>> wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > Hello Alan,</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > I pushed the patches mentioned further below. So the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        raspberry BSP</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > should now work again for all raspberry 1 and 2 on the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        official master</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > branch. Note that the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > kernel_address=0x200000</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > is still necessary.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > This is awesome work. What about the Pi 3 and and Pi 4? I</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        think Niteesh</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > has the Pi 3 working so that leaves the 4. Any idea?</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > --joel</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        As far as I followed his work Niteesh had some minimal version</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        working</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        with the mini UART and thought about trying the existing NS16550</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        (after</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        I suggested that one). But I haven't seen a patch yet. So</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        currently even</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        if some basic stuff runs there will be no console.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Beneath that: Pi 3 and Pi 4 are both 64Bit cores. I don't have any</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        experience with aarch64. Therefore I'm not sure whether we can</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        safely</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        use them with 32Bit fallback. It seems to work to some extend but</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        according to</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#AArch64</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        "ARMv8-A allows 32-bit applications to be executed in</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        a 64-bit OS, and a 32-bit OS to be under the control</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        of a 64-bit hypervisor."</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        So I'm not sure in which situations we will run into problems.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Maybe on</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        interrupts?</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Best regards</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Christian</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > Best regards</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > Christian</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > On 06/01/2020 11:10, Christian Mauderer wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > Hello Alan,</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > thanks for your very detailed tests.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > On 05/01/2020 23:42, Alan Cudmore wrote:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> I finally found the time to try the latest RTEMS head on my</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > collection</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> of Raspberry Pi models.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> The last time I tried to run RTEMS on a Pi, I had</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        trouble with the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> current version of the Raspberry Pi Firmware, so I had</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        to go back</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > to a</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> specific tag on the Rasberry Pi firmware repository to</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        get RTEMS to</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> work. This time, the head of the firmware repository</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        seems to</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > work (at</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> least on the single core models)</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> To keep things simple, I'm just going address the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        single core models</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> here, I can follow up after I finish testing the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Raspberry Pi 2.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> Test Setup:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> I used the git.rtems.org <http://git.rtems.org></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        <http://git.rtems.org></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > <http://git.rtems.org> rtems master from Jan 03</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 2020.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> I used the Raspberry Pi firmware from the same date.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> The firmware can be found here:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware/tree/master/boot</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> To boot an RTEMS image, you can copy all files from the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        above "boot"</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> directory on a DOS formatted SD/MicroSD card along with</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        the RTEMS</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > image</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> (more about that in a minute).</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> On the SD card, I deleted the "dtb" files, as well as</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        the overlay</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> directory. I dont think these are necessary to boot an</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        RTEMS image.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> I built a new arm-rtems5 toolchain using the RSB tool</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        (head from the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> same date) and built the "raspberrypi" BSP. After a</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        quick test</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > failed, I</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> reviewed the latest mailing list posts, and ended up</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        applying the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > linker</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> script patch:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-December/056551.html</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > I don't think that we will apply that patch. It moves</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        code in an area</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > that is protected against access to catch null pointer</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        accesses later.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > This increases the image size.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > The alternative is to add the line</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > kernel_address=0x200000</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > to the config.txt of the raspberry SD image. Niteesh is</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        in the process</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > of documenting this:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-January/056796.html</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> After applying this patch and rebuilding, a few RTEMS</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        samples</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > seemed to</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> work fine on the Raspberry Pi Zero Models 1.2 and 1.3 (no</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > wireless). I</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> ran hello.exe, ticker.exe, and unlimited.exe</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> The above images must be prepared using the following</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        command:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> $ arm-rtems5-objcopy -Obinary ticker.exe kernel.img</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> Then I copied kernel.img over the linux kernel on the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        SD card.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> For all of these tests, I found this serial to USB</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        board to be very</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> useful in my tests:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> https://www.adafruit.com/product/3589</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> It can power the pi through the USB cable and has a</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        power switch</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > as well.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> After the Pi Zero models, I tried my remaining older</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        single core</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > models:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 1. Raspberry Pi Model B ( Original single core model</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        with 512MB</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > of RAM</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> and 26 pin GPIO header)</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 2. Raspberry Pi Model B+ (Updated Single core model</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        with 512MB of RAM</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> and 40 pin GPIO header)</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 3. Raspberry Pi Model A+ (Smaller form factor single</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        core model with</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 256MB of RAM and 40 pin GPIO header)</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> (Note this model has been updated to now have 512MB</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        of RAM)</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> All three of the above models had the same exception</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        that has been</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> discussed on the mailing list:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-December/056556.html</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > I addressed that issue in the following patch set:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-December/056623.html</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-December/056622.html</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-December/056624.html</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > I'll push it in the next days together with patches</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        regarding the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > console from Niteesh. I just gave it some more time for</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        review during</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > the public holidays.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > Basically it addresses the issues that you describe below.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> All of these single core models are supposed to be</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        compatible, and</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> should run the same RTEMS image given the same memory</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        configuration.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> Since the previous message was discussing the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        bspgetworkarea.c</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > changes,</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> I made a couple of changes:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> - Reverted to the generic bspgetworkarea.c file, and</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        changed the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > memory</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> size from 256MB to 128MB ( same as the 4.11 release ).</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> With these changes, the same RTEMS images worked on all</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        single</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > core models:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> - RPi Zero 1.2 and 1.3</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> - RPi Model B</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> - RPi Model B+</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> - RPi Model A+</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> Findings:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 1. The code that identifies the models in bspstart.c</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        does not account</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> for the older models:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/arm/raspberrypi/start/bspstart.c</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> The RPi Model B, B+, and A+ that I have all use the older</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > revision which</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> is not in the table in bspstart.c. I think we can fix</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        this by</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > adding the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> older revision codes in the table, but I think this code is</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > mostly cosmetic.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/hardware/raspberrypi/revision-codes/README.md</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 2. I think the code that determines the memory size in</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > bspgetworkarea.c</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> is not correct:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/arm/raspberrypi/start/bspgetworkarea.c</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> a) The mask for the memory size field should</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        probably be 0x7</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > rather</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> than 0xf. The 0xF picks up the "new revision" field of</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        the word.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/arm/raspberrypi/start/bspgetworkarea.c#n70</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> b) I'm not sure if the rpi_mem array is correct.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        The values</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > are used</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> in address size calculations, but the values seem to be</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        in Kilobytes,</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> not Megabytes. Maybe I'm not catching a shift that is</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        done on</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > these values.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/arm/raspberrypi/start/bspgetworkarea.c#n73</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> c) I'm not sure that the numbers all add up. Line</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        80 computes the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> ram_end value by adding the Work Area start to the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        total size of the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> RAM. I think this will overrun the end of the RAM.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/arm/raspberrypi/start/bspgetworkarea.c#n80</p><p class=MsoNormal>>         > >> d) I would like to look at the relationship between</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        the ram_end</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> calculation and the ram_size given in the autoconfigure</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        setting (</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> currently at 256MiB). Are the MMU settings done based</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        on the hard</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > coded</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> linker script value that may conflict with the sizes</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        set here?</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> e) the code may not work for the older models that</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        do not</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > have the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> updated revision fields.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> If the intent is to cover the different raspberry pi</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        memory sizes</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> automatically, then we can probably rework this code to</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        work for</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > all models.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> We may be able to use the following rationale to</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        simplify the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > memory logic:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 1. All of the current production single core raspberry</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Pi models have</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 512MB of RAM. Do we need to worry about out of</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        production 256MiB</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > models?</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> I have an older A+ model with 256MiB, but I am unlikely</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        to use it for</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> anything serious. I would rather use a Raspberry Pi</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Zero instead.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > Given</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> that, we could assume that the "raspberrypi" BSP has</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        512 MiB of RAM.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> This would only require the calculation of how much</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        memory is</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > devoted to</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> the GPU.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> 2. All of the Raspberry Pi 2 models have 1 Gigabyte of</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        RAM, so the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> raspberrypi2 BSP can safely assume 1 gigabyte. </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> We could also use the specific revision code register</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        (old and</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > new) to</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> set the RAM size, since that should be accurate.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> Anyway, that is what I have so far on the single core</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        models. I would</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> like to take a look at the Pi 2 next. Note that the Pi</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        2 is a</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > Quad A7,</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> that is considered "legacy" but it is still in</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        production. The latest</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> Raspberry Pi 2 has been switched to a Quad core A53, so</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        it is now</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > very</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> similar to the Raspberry Pi 3 without the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Wireless/Bluetooth</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > module. I</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> dont have a Raspberry Pi 2 with an A53.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> There are quite a few newer models as well, so it's</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        probably worth a</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> discussion of what we really want to support. My personal</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > preferences:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> - Of the single core models, I would be happy with</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Raspberry Pi Zero</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> (and possibly Zero W) support. These are are very</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        inexpensive and</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> available worldwide. It may be the least expensive</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        non-simulator</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > RTEMS</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> target board available.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> - I would like one multi-core model as an inexpensive</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        SMP target</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > to work</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> with and learn RTEMS SMP details. Again, my focus is on</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        low cost and</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> wide availability.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > In the ideal case: All models.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > In the real case: It's unfunded. Therefore we take the</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ones that</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > someone</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > is ready to add and maintain during free time.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > Beneath that I think it's more a question which models</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        should be in</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > which BSP variant.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > The `raspberry` variant uses the following CPU_CFLAGS:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > CPU_CFLAGS = -mcpu=arm1176jzf-s</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > The `raspberry2` variant uses the following CPU_CFLAGS:</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > CPU_CFLAGS = -march=armv7-a -mthumb -mfpu=neon</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        -mfloat-abi=hard</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > -mtune=cortex-a7</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > Maybe we will need a variant in the future for an</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        aarch64 support when</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > the core is supported in RTEMS somewhen. Currently I</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        hope that we can</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > just fall back to 32 Bit mode for the newer models.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > So the variants will end up with only a different core.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        It should be</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > possible to handle other differences by parsing the FDT.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Niteesh</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > already</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > started that with the console.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> Thanks for you attention, and happy new year!</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > A happy new year to you too.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > Best regards</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > Christian</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> Alan</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> _______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> devel mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        <mailto:devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org>></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > >></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > _______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > devel mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        <mailto:devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org>></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > _______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > devel mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        <mailto:devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org>></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > _______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > devel mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        ></p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        -- </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        --------------------------------------------</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        embedded brains GmbH</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Herr Christian Mauderer</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Dornierstr. 4</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        D-82178 Puchheim</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Germany</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        email: christian.mauderer@embedded-brains.de</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        <mailto:christian.mauderer@embedded-brains.de></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        PGP: Public key available on request.</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>>        Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        EHUG.</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        _______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        devel mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>>        devel@rtems.org <mailto:devel@rtems.org></p><p class=MsoNormal>>        http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal>> _______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>> devel mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>> devel@rtems.org</p><p class=MsoNormal>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</p><p class=MsoNormal>> </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>