On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:16:51AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> [170907 00:30]: > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 06:30:57AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > * Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> [170905 16:32]: > > > > I think that I made a mistake for configuration CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y and > > > > CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP=y. In this case, the MOVABLE_ZONE can > > > > be *!highmem*. Could you check that your configuration have above > > > > options? > > > > > > CONFIG_HIGHMEM is set yeah. > > > > > > > And, could you check that following patch works for you? > > > > > > Does not seem to help, tried against next with just 9caf25f996e8 > > > revert and also with 9caf25f996e8. > > > > Oops. I misunderstood your problem. Could you test with > > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL? > > Sure. > > > After commit 9caf25f996e8, user for CMA memory should use to check > > PageHighmem in order to get proper virtual address of the page. If > > someone doesn't use it, it is possible to use wrong virtual address > > and it then causes the use of wrong physical address. > > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL would catch this case. > > OK, no extra output of current next with CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y. > Booting of n900 hangs with just the same error: > > save_secure_sram() returns 0000ff02 > > > If it doesn't help, is there a way to test n900 configuration in QEMU? > > I doubt that QEMU n900 boots in secure mode but instead shows > the SoC as general purpose SoC. If so, you'd have to patch the > omap3_save_secure_ram_context() to attempt to save secure RAM > context in all cases. If that works then debugging with any > omap3 board like beagleboard in QEMU should work. Sorry for late response. I tried to emulate beagle board by using QEMU and now I find the way and it works. However, it doesn't call omap3_save_secure_ram_context() due to different omap_type(). And, even if I call it forcibly, the system dies with prefetch abort regardless of commit 9caf25f996e8. Could you let me know the better way to test your situation? Anyway, could you test linux-next with 'CONFIG_HIGHMEM = n'? I'd like to know if the issue is related to the change that all CMA memory is managed like as highmem. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
